Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (BARMSTON-COXGREEN FOOTBRIDGE) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Sheet and Strip Steel Supplies

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Paymaster-General in view of the rising demand for sheet and strip steel by the steel-using exporting industries, what plans the steel industry has for erecting new sheet and strip mills.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I am informed by the Iron and Steel Board that plans in hand for the development of existing wide strip mills are designed to provide by 1960 an annual sheet output of over three quarters of a million tons more than in 1956. Plans for the provision of further sheet and strip capacity after 1960 are under discussion between the Board and the industry.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As the demands of the sheet steel-using industries are

rising, and look like going on rising for the next few years, and as we do not want to be dependent upon imports of dollar sheet steel, would my right hon. Friend press the Iron and Steel Board to make its plans for a new sheet mill in 1960, if possible?

Mr. Maudling: My Answer showed that the plans do provide for a substantial expansion in strip mill capacity, but, for the details, I would ask my hon. Friend to await publication of the Report of the Iron and Steel Board, which is expected shortly.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the new plans will make us independent of imports of United States steel?

Mr. Maudling: I think it would be better to await publication of the plans before going into more detail at this moment.

Nuclear Power Stations (Siting)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Paymaster-General whether a decision has yet been reached on the siting of new atomic power plants; and what safeguards he has in mind to preserve the amenities of the countryside.

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Government decision that, for the present, nuclear power stations should be sited away from centres of population, and I cannot yet say how long it will be before sufficient experience has been gained to enable this decision to be reconsidered. Meanwhile, my noble Friend will continue to do everything possible to avoid any unnecessary damage to the amenities of the countryside.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend and his noble Friend bear in mind the great beauty of the Lake District and do what they can to avoid despoiling it in any way?

Mr. Maudling: Most certainly. I have recently visited the Central Electricity Authority and seen something of the way in which it sets about preserving the amenities of the country as far as possible. I am very impressed by the care with which it goes into these matters.

Mr. Snow: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when local inquiries take place, witnesses provided by the Ministry of Power will be able to answer questions affecting other Ministries involved in such matters as have been raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), in sharp contradistinction to what happened at the Bradwell inquiry?

Mr. Maudling: I have not heard such complaints about that inquiry, but if the hon. Member will send me details I shall be glad to look into them.

Industrial Fuel Oil and Coke (Prices)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Paymaster-General by how much the price of industrial fuel oil had increased, per gallon between 1947 and the recent ending of rationing; how much the price of domestic coke has increased per hundredweight since 1947; and if, by way of comparison, he will express these price increases on a percentage basis.

Mr. Maudling: Industrial fuel oil by 5¼d. per gallon, or 65 per cent. Wholesale, and domestic coke by 5s. 6d. a cwt., or 130 per cent. retail.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does not this illustrate how costs in the coal industry have gone up compared with other prices? Is it not a fact that costs in the coal industry have gone up by five times compared with the industry's pre-war costs? Is not this the largest increase of any industry? Surely the coal industry should try to absorb these increased costs, as have agriculture and other industries.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Maudling: The fact is that, on the average, the retail price of coal has risen since 1947 by over 100 per cent., which must be one of the highest items in the Cost of Living Index.

Peat

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Paymaster-General his plans for developing the use of peat as a fuel.

Mr. Mandling: Experiments on the development of peat as a fuel are being actively continued at Gardrum Moss in Stirlingshire in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture for Scotland,

as part of the wider programme of peat development under the guidance of the Scottish Peat Committee. It is hoped that sufficient information will be available later this year to enable a decision to be taken about the future course of this project.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not time that the Minister came to a firm decision about the development of peat, abundant supplies of which are available in Scotland? Is he aware that if peat were obtained for use as fuel a large amount of agricultural land could be developed?

Mr. Maudling: As experiments are going on into the use of peat as fuel, it seems a good deal wiser to wait until those experiments are completed.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country is much more interested in his plans for developing an increased output of coal, if necessary with the assistance of a few Hungarians?

Mr. Maudling: I think the country is interested in the development of all forms of energy.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Quality, Grades and Prices

Mrs. Mann: asked the Paymaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the evidence concerning the bad quality of coal delivered by retailers and incorrect pricing of deliveries and to the complaints of housewives on these matters; and if he will take steps to empower inspectors of weights and measures throughout Great Britain to inspect for grade and price, as well as for weight.

Mr. Maudling: I have received no evidence to suggest that overcharging through upgrading quality is so widespread as to make it necessary for all weights and measures inspectors to be given additional powers of inspection.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been quite a number of prosecutions for this very thing? In view of the fact that the weights and measures inspectors of Glasgow and Bradford have power to inspect for grade and price as well as for weight, what reason is there to prevent weights and measures inspectors all over


Britain from doing that? If they can do it in Glasgow and Bradford, why cannot they do it elsewhere?

Mr. Mandling: Certainly, there have been a number of prosecutions, and most of them were instituted by my Department. There is a problem here, because if we were to inspect for quality and price the inspectors would have to be given power under the Defence Regulations of entry on to private premises. That is something which I do not think we should extend lightly. It has been extended in certain areas, to which the hon. Lady referred, but if she has evidence of the necessity in particular areas for a similar extension, I should be glad to consider it.

Prices

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Paymaster-General whether, in order to achieve a measure of stabilisation of coal prices, he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to ensure that industrial purchasers in all cases pay the full economic price for the particular grades of coal demanded.

Mr. Maudling: The same pricing principles apply to all coal sold by the National Coal Board irrespective of the user.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer has been given several times in this House but that it gets us no further so far as the steel industry is concerned? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what price per ton the steel industry now pays for coking coal, and the difference between the price it pays and the economic cost of production of that coal?

Mr. Maudling: The fact that the same answer has been given to many Questions by the hon. Member on this point means that it is the true answer in each case. Without notice, I could not give the exact price for various coking coals, but I can assure the hon. Member that an economic price is certainly charged to the industry.

Mr. Jay: Is it not true that coal is being sold to British industry at 30s. or 40s. a ton below the European price? Is it not high time that private industry paid the economic price and was no longer subsidised by the National Coal Board?

Mr. Maudling: In so far as there is a subsidy, it is more to the domestic consumer than to industry, because the subsidy arises mainly on imported coal, which is sold below the imported price, and the majority of that goes to the domestic consumer.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the price of coal for industry in this country is below the European price?

Mr. Maudling: I certainly do not deny that, but the fact that a product is cheaper in this country than elsewhere does not necessarily mean that it is subsidised.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Paymaster-General on how many occasions the price of Group 2 domestic coal has been raised in the West of England since nationalisation; by how much on each occasion; and what was the major contributory factor on each occasion.

Mr. Maudling: Since the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend will realise that it is with the greatest reluctance that I agree to his circulating the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but does he not agree that the time has come when we should face the re-organisation of the coal industry? There is grave and widespread doubt in the country whether the industry, on its present nationalised basis, can render an essential contribution to the country's welfare. Will my right hon. Friend agree that the crux of the whole position is that this dangerous and quite self-defeating process of demanding more for doing less, if continued, can only bring disaster to the industry and the country?

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend has raised as questions some very important issues which are really too wide to go into in answer to supplementary questions.

Mr. Robens: As the Question referred to the domestic price of coal and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) suggested some re-organisation, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware


that we on this side of the House will be very happy to see a re-organisation of the distributive trade in the coal industry?

GROUP 2 HOUSE COAL SINCE 1ST JUNE, 1951, AND COMPARABLE COAL FROM 1ST JANUARY, 1947, TO 31st MAY, 1951—YEOVIL


Changes in Price


(The National House Coal Groups were instituted on 1st June, 1951, and there is no exact comparison with earlier descriptions)


Date
Increase
Reason
Retail Price



s.
d.

s.
d.


1st January, 1947
—
—
84
10


5th March 1947
1
8
Merchant's Margin
86
6


1st September 1947
4
0
Pit
90
6


1st October 1947
4
8
Rail Freight
95
2


1st January, 1948
2
6
Pit
97
8


26th January 1948

4
Merchant's Margin
98
0


21st February, 1949

7
Merchant's Margin
98
7


30th May, 1949
6
6
Pit and Reclassification of Coals
105
1


15th May, 1950
4
5
Rail Freight and Merchant's Margin (5d.)
109
6


12th June, 1950
1
10
Merchant's Margin
111
4


12th February, 1951
4
2
Pit
115
6


16th April, 1951
2
10
Rail Freight
118
4


1st June, 1951
Net decrease
Reclassification of house coals into National Groups, and Merchant's Margin Increase (2s. 3d.).
109
5



8
11




1st October, 1951

6
Merchant's Margin
109
11


31st December, 1951
8
4
Pit (5s. 8d.) and Railway Freight
118
3


1st April, 1952

4
Merchant's Margin
118
7


21st May, 1952

5
Merchant's Margin
119
0


18th September, 1952

4
Merchant's Margin
119
4


1st December, 1952
1
4
Rail Freight
120
8


2nd March, 1953
7
0
Pit
127
8


8th July, 1953
4
8
Pit
132
4


10th September, 1953

3
Merchant's Margin
132
7


16th November, 1953
1
11
Merchant's Margin
134
6


8th February, 1954

6
Merchant's Margin
135
0


1st March, 1954
2
11
Rail Freight
137
11


3rd May, 1954
13
0
Pit
150
11


6th January, 1955

6
Merchant's Margin
151
5


25th April, 1955
1
6
Merchant's Margin
152
11


5th June, 1955
2
6
Rail Freight
155
5


18th July, 1955
16
7
Pit
172
0


23rd April, 1956
1
11
Merchant's Margin
175
8


1
9
Rail Freight


1st June, 1956
8
9
Pit
184
5


17th December, 1956

8
Merchant's Margin
185
1


29th April, 1957
Reduction
Merchant's Margin
184
7




6





9th June, 1957

6
Merchant's Margin
185
1


1st July, 1957

7
Merchant's Margin
195
8


10
0
Pit


NOTE: The "Merchant's Margin" covers the whole cost of distribution from railway depot to consumer.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Paymaster-General whether he will give an estimate of the proportion of the increase in the price of domestic coal since 1945 which is attributable to higher freight charges.

Mr. Maudling: For Yeovil, nearly one-quarter on Group 4 coal.

Mr. Maudling: I had an impression that a former Minister of Fuel and Power set up a Committee to inquire into that. That examination is still going on.

The following is the answer:

Mr. Peyton: While one expects the two figures to go together, does not my right hon. Friend think this proportion is really excessive? Will he draw the attention of the Board and the Transport Commission to this fact so that they can produce a more sensible solution?

Mr. Maudling: It is a little difficult to follow the argument of my hon. Friend. The point is that of the increases in coal prices which have taken place in his area about one-quarter has been due to increased freight charges. I think it would be very difficult to draw any useful conclusions from that without going into considerable detail.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Paymaster-General (1) whether he will place in the Library of the House the record of the proceedings between the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council and the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council prior to their agreement to an increase in the price of coal;
(2) what procedure was followed by the National Coal Board in its presentation of the proposed increase in the cost of coal to the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council; what deliberations took place and between whom; how long were the facts under discussion; how detailed was the information provided; and how often did the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council meet to analyse the position before agreeing to the National Coal Board's recommendations.

Mr. Maudling: It is for the Councils themselves to decide whether or not to disclose their proceedings. I am informed, however, that both the Industrial and the Domestic Councils have always kept their proceedings private on the grounds that frank discussion might otherwise be inhibited.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I do not think, nor do a lot of other people, that the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council is technically sufficiently well informed to advise the National Coal Board on whether there should be an increase of price or not? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the opinion of most people, the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council and the Industrial Consumers' Council had no more opportunity of restraining the National Coal Board from increasing prices than Adam had of refusing the advances made by Eve?

Mr. Maudling: I think both Councils as at present constituted are well suited to represent the point of view of the industrial consumer and the domestic consumer, but if my hon. Friend has any

suggestions to make as to improving the representation, I am sure my noble Friend would be glad to consider them.

Mr. Gower: asked the Paymaster-General (1) by how much per ton the retail price of Group 2 house coal has increased since 1947 in South Wales; what percentage increase in cost this represents; what steps he now proposes to prevent further burdens on consumers in the South Wales area; and if he will make a statement;
(2) for how long he anticipates that the recently authorised increases in the retail price of coal will provide sufficient revenue for the National Coal Board; and what proposals he has for delaying any further increase in price.

Mr. Maudling: Group 2 house coal is not sold in. South Wales, but for Group 3 the increase since 1947 has been about 90s. per ton, or 125 per cent.
For the future, whether any further increases in the pithead price of coal will be needed must depend upon the trend of costs, including wages and salary levels in the industry, and the cost of outside purchases by the National Coal Board, both of which are affected by the general level of prices, and on the extent to which rising costs, should they persist, can be offset by increases in productivity. The main contributions that can be made to holding down the price of coal are: more mechanisation, improved techniques and more regular attendance. These are the problems on which the National Coal Board are particularly concentrating their attention.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Questions such as this, particularly coming from South Wales, are used by his hon. Friends only to cover up the fact that what they are hearing about this week is not the price of coal but the implementation of the Rent Act?

Mr. Maudling: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in that. I am sure that my hon. Friends who have these Questions on the Order Paper are concerned, as I am sure the whole House and the country are concerned, about the recent substantial rise in the price of coal.

Lieut. -Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Arising out of the Questions and my right


hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether it is not a fact that one miner in fourteen is now taking an unofficial day off each week as compared with one in twenty-five a year ago? Is not this due to the new bonus shift system, and did not Mr. Arthur Horner pledge the honour of his union that absenteeism would not increase? Is not this costing the country 500,000 tons of coal a week?

Mr. Maudling: I could not accept my hon. and gallant Friend's figures as being accurate, but this is a very important matter. There is no doubt that since the abolition of the bonus shift conditions output has taken a nasty fall. This is bound to give rise to much concern. I saw that at the recent conference of the National Union of Mineworkers Mr. Arthur Horner said that when the Board agreed to abolish the bonus shift system the union had staked its honour that the miners would not take advantage of the concession. He said that it was too early to judge the tendency, and I agree that it is too early to judge, but I know that leading members of the National Union of Mineworkers are very determined about this and that they and the Board together are determined to do all they can to ensure that we do not lose production, because it would be very bad for the nation if we did.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Would not the Minister agree that, in the circumstances, since the end of the war, and bearing in mind the experience of the miners between the wars, the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers have shown a real sense of national responsibility?

Mr. Maudling: The leaders of the mineworkers are doing an extremely good job in trying to persuade the members of their union on various important points. I think we all wish them success in their efforts.

Mr. Dudley Williams: While accepting my right hon. Friend's statement that the National Union of Mineworkers is concerned, can he tell the House whether any concern is being shown by the National Coal Board about this matter?

Mr. Maudling: Of course.

Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that only the, nationalised industries stabilised their prices in 1956 and 1957, while

private enterprise increased its prices? Is he further aware that the steel industry put up its prices by 6 per cent. in January and that there was not one voice from the Government side of the House in opposition? Is it not about time that they gave the nationalised boards a square deal instead of blaming them for the faults of private enterprise?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member is mistaken. A very wide range of private industry carried out the same stabilisation.

Mr. Gower: While appreciating the difficulties of the coal industry, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend does not agree that this problem has to be viewed with particular urgency because the repercussions of an increase in the price of coal are necessarily so widespread and have such an effect on so many people and industries throughout the country?

Mr. Maudling: I quite agree with that.

Mr. Gower: asked the Paymaster-General what arrangements will be made to prevent further increases in the retail price of coal which will arise from increased freight rates consequent upon the recently authorised increase in coal prices; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General what part of the price increase of 6s. 6d. per ton in the pithead price of coal on 1st July, 1957, yielding £66 million in additional revenue to the National Coal Board in the full year, is designed to make provision for capital development requirements and to what extent for reimbursement of National Coal Board losses on current account or prospective losses; and what steps he is now taking to prevent further increases in the price of coal to the consumer, following the British Transport Commission's increase of 10 per cent. in rail freights consequent upon the 6s. 6d. per ton increase in coal prices.

Mr. Maudling: The recent coal price increase was intended to cover increases in costs falling on the National Coal Board during the current year and to provide a small revenue surplus. On present estimates, the increase should provide a similar surplus in 1958, and any revenue surplus which may be earned in either year will directly reduce the advances from the Minister for capital purposes.
The recent coal price increase added about £5 million per annum to the costs of the British Transport Commission, which is equivalent to about 1 per cent. of railway traffic receipts. A 1 per cent. increase in the cost of carrying coal by rail would add about 3d. per ton to the average retail price. The 10 per cent. increase announced will lead to an increase by an average of about 2s. 6d. per ton from 1st August, though the exact figure in different districts will vary according to their distance from the pithead.

Mr. Gower: Is not my right hon. Friend particularly disturbed by this dog-chasingits-tail policy? Does he not think that some extraordinary remedy or approach is needed? Could he not arrange for the Minister of Power and the Minister of Transport, together with the heads of the National Coal Board and British transport industry, to get together and consider the whole problem?

Mr. Maudling: I doubt whether much could be achieved by mutual price cutting between the two nationalised boards because, except as far as they can be reduced by greater efficiency, the increased costs must eventually be carried by the consumer, be he a consumer of transport or a consumer of coal.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend used the words "greater efficiency". Can he say what contribution was made by greater efficiency towards reducing the increased costs of the National Coal Board? Is it not a fact that the whole of the £66 million revenue from increased prices, which the Board is levying for the current year, has been put on the backs of the consumers and that no regard has been paid to increase in efficiency? Will he not approach the members of the National Coal Board and try to knock out of their heads some of this cost-plus mentality?

Mr. Maudling: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by the "cost-plus mentality". A large proportion of the increase in coal costs arises from decisions of this House in the Mines and Quarries Act and the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill. I suppose that of the remaining increased costs, wages are the largest element. The only way in which one can mitigate that is by increasing productivity. It is a matter for very great

concern that despite increased mechanisation and increased investment, and owing to poorer attendances and sometimes more disputes, production in 1956 has not risen by comparison with that in 1951. I think that is the basis of the matter.

Mr. Robens: Is it not the case that the series of Questions we have just had are an attack upon the miners' wages? Is it not the case that unless miners are paid good wages and enjoy good conditions fewer men will go into the pits and, as a consequence, coal will be substantially dearer?

Mr. Maudling: I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I do not think there is any question of an attack upon the level of mineworkers' wages. I agree with what he said about that. My hon. Friends are concerned—and I share their concern—about the fact that productivity has not been rising as it should.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General what estimate he has made of the effects of further increased prices for house coal after 1st July, 1957, upon demand next winter from house-holders; what changes he now proposes to make in the allocation of 34 cwts. of coal to each house-holder in the South and 50 cwts. in the North; and whether house coal supplies, excluding imports, are adequate to meet the estimate he has made of demand.

Mr. Maudling: We cannot assume that the price increases recently announced will materially affect demand next winter, and, therefore, no change in the domestic allocations is contemplated at present on that account. Supplies of large coal will not be adequate to meet estimated demand without help from imports, but the small sizes are in better supply and should be used wherever possible.

Mr. Nabarro: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's refutation of the dear coal policy, is it not a fact that coal for the domestic consumer, particularly in the South of England, is extraordinarily dear? Is he aware that those living on relatively modest incomes are today faced with a situation in which they cannot afford to buy the ration? As coal is now rationed by price, why keep all this clumsy abracadabra of bureaucracy in being for a shortage that no longer exists?

Mr. Maudling: On all the evidence that we have, it is fairly clear that, taking the country as a whole, the demand for domestic coal is still higher than the prospective supply. In those circumstances, I do not see how, at the moment, we can remove rationing, though my noble Friend is very anxious to do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Slater: In view of the reply that the Minister has given to his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), will he tell the House what is the average pithead price of coal at the moment, and what is the difference between the pithead price and the price after bringing it into the south of England? Further, will he organise a visit of some of his hon. Friends to the pits in the industrial area so that they can go down the mines and see the conditions in which these people are expected to work in a basic industry which his hon. Friends are criticising so much?

Mr. Maudling: I should be glad to organise a visit of that character for hon. Members on either side of the House. As regards the cost of coal, it is, of course, dearer in the South. The further regions are from the pithead the greater the effect of rising transport charges is felt in those regions.

Mr. Jennings: asked the Paymaster-General by how much the retail price of Group 2 house coal, in terms of money and percentage, has risen in Burton-on-Trent since 1st January, 1947.

Mr. Maudling: About 99s. a ton, or 150 per cent.

Mr. Jennings: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the recurrent increases in the price of coal are the prime factor in the inflationary spiral? Is he aware that these recurrent increases press most hardly on the fixed income groups, such as old-age pensioners and retirement pensioners? Is he further aware that these people in my constituency are distressed in mind and in purse, and will he consult his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to see if it is possible to alleviate the hardship inflicted on these people by these increases by an immediate increase in pension, or by some scheme of concession?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary questions today have been of an inordinate length. If hon. Members would ask their questions succinctly, we could get on much quicker.

Mr. Maudling: The Question whether rising prices cause inflation or inflation causes rising prices is one to leave, I think, to economists, but I will certainly repeat that the recent increase in the price of coal is a matter of very serious concern to industry, to the domestic consumer and to people on fixed incomes. But I must ask my hon. Friend to address any questions about pensions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.

Mr. Dudley Williams: asked the Paymaster-General, in view of the 6s. 6d. a ton pithead increase in coal announced on 1st July, 1957, and the 10 per cent. increase in rail freights, what will be the increase in retail prices for house coal in Devonshire.

Mr. Maudling: The increases in retail prices in Devon on 1st July, 1957, varied from 5s. a ton for Group 7 coal to 11s. 8d. a ton for Group 1. The proposed increase in rail freights will increase retail prices of all grades of coal in Devon by about 5s.

Mr. Dudley Williams: In view of that deplorable statement, does not my right hon. Friend think that he should make immediate representations to the Chairman of the National Coal Board with a view to re-introducing the bonus shift conditions?

Mr. Maudling: No. I think that negotiations between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers on wages and conditions of employment are matters to be left to the discretion of the National Coal Board. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the National Coal Board weighed very carefully indeed the conflicting elements in the decision before agreeing to this abolition of the bonus shift conditions. I would refer again to what the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers have said; that they regard themselves as having made a pledge. I hope very much that they prove that in practice they can carry it out.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by how much rents have increased in Devonshire in the past two weeks?

Mr. Maudling: I think that, with adequate notice, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government could do so.

Mr. Braine: asked the Paymaster-General by how much the price of Group 2 house-hold coal has increased in the home counties and in south-east Essex, in particular, since nationalisation; and how many increases in price have been made during this period.

Mr. Maudling: In London by about 106s. a ton, and in south-east Essex by 114s. The number of price increases has been 31 and 34.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by how much less those prices might be increased if he could abolish the unfair system under which the National Coal Board has to bear the loss on imported coal?

Mr. Maudling: The loss on imported coal amounts to about 1s. 6d. per ton, speaking without reference to the book. The loss on imported coal is certainly a large item in the National Coal Board accounts, but the argument as to whether or not that should be borne by the Coal Board or by the taxpayer is much too big an argument for discussion at Question Time.

Mr. J. Eden: asked the Paymaster-General, by how much the retail price of Group 2 house coal delivered to Bournemouth has increased since 1947; and what percentage of this increase is due to transportation costs.

Mr. Maudling: About 123s., of which about 20 per cent. has been due to railway freight increases.

Mr. Eden: Now that railway freight costs will probably go up as a result of the recent coal price increase, can my right hon. Friend say when the next increase in the price of coal will take place as a result of the increased cost of transport?

Mr. Maudling: As I explained in answer to an earlier Question, the effect of the coal price increase is not likely

to add more than ¼ per cent. to the delivered cost of coal to the consumer, so I think the effect of these two things one against the other can sometimes be exaggerated.

Mr. Darling: In order to get this increase in the price of coal into perspective, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the cost of other things has gone up, including Kidderminster carpets, which are now about four times the pre-war price?

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Member will look at the statistics and the price indices he will find that, compared with 1949, the price of coal has risen a good deal more than has the price of carpets.

Mr. Nabarro: A Kidderminster carpet is always cheap at the price.

Mr. J. Eden: asked the Paymaster-General what grades of domestic house coal are delivered to Bournemouth; and how many of these were available at cheap summer prices.

Mr. Maudling: As the responsibility for distributing the various qualities of house coal to merchants in different parts of the country is the National Coal Board's, I am asking the Chairman to provide my hon. Friend with this information.
I should like to take this opportunity of making it clear that the National Coal Board announcement to which I referred last Monday in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington), to the effect that householders in the South of England who placed orders on or before 8th June would get delivery at prices ruling at the date of the order, referred specifically to unconditional orders only.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emrys Hughes.

Mrs. Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I direct your attention to Questions on the Order Paper relating to Group 2 coal which appears to be sold all over Britain, according to those Questions, whereas in fact Group 2 coal represents only 10 per cent. of the whole output of the pits?

Mr. Speaker: That is not even near a point of order.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General the estimated total extra charge to industry brought about by the increased coal prices; and what approximate improvement in the efficiency of fuel utilisation by industry would offset the financial effect of the extra charge.

Mr. Maudling: About £29 million, including the direct effect on costs of electricity, gas and coke supplied to industry. It would be necessary to reduce industrial consumption of fuel, excluding oil, by 5 or 6 per cent. to offset this extra charge.

Mr. Palmer: Would not the paymaster-General agree that industry, if it made a real effort, could largely counteract the alleged inflationary effect of increased coal prices by fuel efficiency?

Mr. Maudling: Admittedly, it could use fuel much more efficiently. What the country needs is much more fuel efficiency and not more expensive coal.

Mr. Nicholson: Would not my right hon. Friend and the House agree that the difficulties which the country is facing are not primarily a criticism on the mining industry but are a criticism of successive Governments for failing to halt inflation?

Mr. Maudling: Once again, I would say that the effect of rising prices on inflation and of inflation on rising prices is a complicated question.

Concessionary and Free Allowances

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Paymaster-General what is his estimate, on the basis of figures supplied to him for the Ministry of Power Statistical Digest, of the present approximate consumption of coal per annum in respect of the free allowance to miners, together with the value thereof.

Mr. Maudling: Two million tons in 1956 worth about £9 million. In addition, about 3 million tons, worth about £13½ million, were supplied at concessionary prices.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As every time the price of coal goes up the miners are, in effect, getting an increase in wages—that is, the miners who have free coal—and in view of the public feeling on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—has not the time arrived for the issue of

free coal to miners to be reviewed, and would not my right hon. Friend issue a directive to the National Coal Board that, since the value of the free coal is £23 million a year, the total amount of free coal issued should not exceed £23 million a year for the future?

Mr. Maudling: The figures show that the free coal is worth £9 million a year and that £13½ million worth is supplied at concessionary prices. It is, of course, quite true that when the retail price of coal rises the value of this concessionary coal goes up, but really all this is part and parcel of the general wages negotiations, and it would be quite wrong for my noble Friend to interfere with wage negotiations.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) had his way he would create more industrial strife, secure a much lower output of coal and land the nation in an infinitely worse position than it is in now? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many free miles are driven in motor cars supplied by the motor car manufacturers to their employees to enable them to do their jobs effectively?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that that was at all the purpose or the effect of my hon. Friend's Question. In view of the great public interest which is taken in this matter, it is right that these questions should be asked and answered.

Pithead Costs and Wages

Mr. G. Darling: asked the Paymaster-General what proportion of the pithead costs of coal is represented by wages.

Mr. Maudling: Sixty per cent. in 1956.

Mr. Darling: In view of the fact that this is an extractive and not a manufacturing industry and that about 200 mines produce coal at more than average cost, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how it is possible to stabilise prices except by a great expansion of the investment programme so that these high-cost mines can be closed down?

Mr. Maudling: There are many factors involved in the way in which we can stabilise the price of coal, and reference is made to those in subsequent questions on the Order Paper today.

Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend clarify the public mind by saying to what extent the Government are responsible for the level of wages in the industry?

Mr. Maudling: The Government have no responsibility for the level of wages in the mining industry. That is a matter for the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

Imports

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General how much imported coal was sold on the British market in the twelve months ended 30th June, 1957; what losses were incurred on this resale, both aggregate and average per ton; and what proportion of the permitted increase of 6s. 6d. per ton will be used in defraying such losses.

Mr. Maudling: 3·7 million tons of coal were sold at a loss of £14 million, or 75s. per ton in the twelve months ended 30th June. The permitted increase of 6s. 6d. per ton for the selling price of coal was to provide for increased costs of home production.

Mr. Nabarro: I was hoping to ask another supplementary on the previous Question. Turning to this Question, how long is this national scandal of coal imports to be allowed to continue? Has my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Power any policy for eliminating coal imports in the future, thus relieving the heavy burden which is being placed upon the consumer by the losses incurred on resale of imported coal?

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend uses strong language, and I do not know whether it contributes anything to a solution of what is a difficult and technical problem. The proportion of large coal being mined is falling with modern mining methods. The National Coal Board hopes to mitigate that decline with more modern machinery, which it is now trying to introduce, but if the proportion of large coal, which is the type the domestic market requires, continues to fall, and if people still want the same amount of large coal, it will be impossible to eliminate imports. This problem is being and must be tackled from two points of view—first of all, to try to stop the decline in the proportion of large coal

and, secondly, to try to increase the use of smaller coals, an effort to which my hon. Friend has himself contributed a very great deal.

Mr. Jay: Does not the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) talk a great deal of nonsense? How can the National Coal Board either carry out its modernisation projects or get rid of imports as long as it is forced to charge a price far below the economic level?

Mr. Maudling: I do not always agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), nor do I often agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), but if, as it appears, the right hon. Gentleman is advocating a deliberate policy of dearer coal, I certainly do not agree with him.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nabarro.

Mr. Nabarro: I wanted to say that that was the best thing my right hon. Friend has said today. Question No. 17.

Production

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Paymaster-General how much the annual production of coal has increased since 1951; and if he will express the increase on a percentage basis.

Mr. Maudling: Total coal production in 1956 was virtually identical with that of 1951.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Paymaster-General aware that this compares with an increase in wages of 30 per cent. and capital investment of over £350 million? Is he aware how desperate pensioners and those living on fixed incomes are feeling when they see this lack of productivity? It is that lack of productivity, and not because they wish to see less wages paid to the miners, that is making those people desperate over the rise in the price of coal.

Mr. Maudling: I think it is a very serious matter that, despite the increased investment in the industry, coal production was virtually stationary between 1951 and 1956. The fact is that the increase in output per man shift was outweighed by longer holidays, by increased absenteeism and by higher disputes losses, although there was a rise in the total labour force. In the first five months of 1957, we have seen what results can be


obtained from this increased mechanisation, and I hope that after the present transitional period following upon the abolition of the bonus shift condition is over we shall see a resumption of the very encouraging trend of the first five months of this year.

Mr. Robens: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to run a small class for a number of his hon. Friends in order to teach them some of the facts about coal production? Is it not the case that output per manshift has increased and that, therefore, productivity has increased and that the amount of manpower in the pits is a variable factor? Is it not also the case that just so soon as all these Questions and Answers are published in the newspapers in the mining areas they are likely to lead to more difficulties and not less?

Mr. Maudling: I am at the disposal of the House to provide information to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides, and it appears that there is a good deal of inquiry being made from both sides. I think that I should repeat once again these facts. Between 1951 and 1956, despite a slightly increased labour force, despite increased investment—and despite an increase in the output per man shift, I quite agree—we did not get any increase in output per man year, which is the vital figure: but in the first five months of 1957 we saw what could be done; I believe that in the next few months we shall see a return to that.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us regret the poor wages that were paid to miners in years gone by, but welcome the payment of adequate wages now, and would greatly welcome a further increase in wages if it were commensurate with an increase in output?

Mr. Maudling: I think that there will be general agreement with that proposition.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In order to be fair to all concerned, would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House that the fall in output per man year was due to the fact that last year, for the first time, miners had a fortnight's holiday, and state whether he or any hon. Member opposite objects to miners having two weeks' holiday with pay? Further, will he arrange for those of his hon. Friends behind him who put these Questions a

visit to the coalfields so that they may be informed of the miners' views?

Mr. Maudling: I have referred to both of those points; to the fact that the miners had a fortnight's paid holiday, and to the pleasure with which I would arrange such a visit.

Opencast Mining

Mr. Braine: asked the Paymaster-General what contribution is currently being made to overall coal production by opencast working; and how production from this source compares with the position in previous years.

Mr. Maudling: In the first 27 weeks of this year 6,885,000 tons of coal were produced at opencast sites. This is the highest recorded output for that period of the year and represents over 5½ per cent. of total supplies.

Mr. Braine: Is it not clear from that reply that opencast coal production is making a very notable contribution to our overall coal supplies as well as producing at a much lower cost than deep-mined coal? Can my right hon. Friend, therefore, explain why it was that last month the National Coal Board in the North-East issued instructions to opencast producers to restrict production because of inadequate storage space? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this reveals a most extraordinary lack of foresight? Is he aware that while my constituents are all in favour of high wages in industry for high production, the one thing they will not excuse is inefficiency?

Mr. Maudling: In recent months the continued good weather and the failure of industrial consumption to rise has meant that our stocks of coal are at record levels, and certainly from time to time this has given rise to stocking difficulties, as it is bound to do. I am not aware of the particular case to which my hon. Friend has referred, but if he will send me details I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Robens: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the Government's failure to plan our exports and to permit the Coal Board to export adequately that has left us with such huge stocks?

Mr. Maudling: The problem of exports is not to plan them but to sell them.

Nationalised Industries (Fuel Efficiency)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General the approximate quantity, and the estimated value, of the coal saved in the nationalised gas and electricity industries due to increased efficiency of fuel utilisation, since vesting date in each case.

Mr. Maudling: For gas nearly 10 million tons, worth some £40 million, and for electricity about 35 million tons, worth some £120 million.

Mr. Palmer: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is an example by nationalised industries which the whole of British industry might well follow?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that this is an excellent performance, but there are plenty of excellent performances in private industry also.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Silo Subsidies Act (Grants)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many definite proposals for grant under the Silo Subsidies Act have been made; how many have been agreed; and what is the total amount of the grants.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): No central records have been maintained of the number of proposals for grant which have been made under the Agriculture (Silo Subsidies) Act, 1956, but by 31st May, 9,305 proposals in the United Kingdom have been approved, the total amount of grant payable being £1,422,522.

Mr. du Cann: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with this progress? Will he also say whether he thinks West Country farmers in particular are taking advantage of the provisions of this excellent Act, and whether he thinks that our bill for imported feedingstuffs will be any less this year?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I am very satisfied with the overall response to this scheme. I think that, on the whole, there has been a very satisfactory response from the West Country, and I am hopeful that in the

long run it will have a good effect on restricting our necessary in ports of feedingstuffs.

Mr. H. Hynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that if some of these Government grants and subsidies were diverted to the coal industry it might help that industry?

Mr. Amory: I prefer to keep them all under my own control.

Potatoes

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is being done to dispose of the old potato crops dumped at the many farms throughout the country and for which his Department has spent so much money in buying up such crops.

Mr. Amory: Potatoes bought by the Potato Marketing Board under the guarantee arrangements as surplus to requirements for human consumption are being disposed of as rapidly as possible for feeding to livestock. I am informed that substantial quantities have been processed into animal feedingstuffs. The 1956 crop was, however, so abundant that it will not be possible to use all of it.

Mr. Slater: In view of that surplus in the potato crop last year, and the publicity given to the matter, would it not be well to liberate those stocks altogether and even to offer them to hospitals and places like that to get rid of them beneficially, instead of letting them lie on the farms to go rotten and be of no use whatever?

Mr. Amory: The trouble is that the demand is very inelastic, and, judging by experience, it is extremely difficult to encourage demand even by reductions in prices. Late as it is now in the season, I think that there are only very small quantities, if any, available on the farms still fit for human consumption.

Food Costs

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the up-to-date figures of the cost of providing an adequate diet for representative groups of the community in Scotland.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 8th July.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of the fact that the National Food Survey and the 1955 Report of the Department of Health for Scotland show appreciable differences between the standard of nutrition of the people in Scotland and the standard of nutrition of the people in England and Wales, ought there not to be social indices of the kind which the Nutrition Committee of the British Medical Association published in 1953?

Mr. Amory: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter, but I really believe that the best service I can render is to do my best, as I am doing now, to get the National Food Survey figures out quicker than they have been got out in the past. We are making steady progress, and I hope that the full report for 1955 will be out in a few weeks.

Transit of Animals

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to control the traffic in unweaned calves and the conditions under which such calves are transported in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Amory: There are no regulations governing the sale of unweaned calves. The Transit of Animals Orders, made under the Diseases of Animals Act, contain very detailed regulations governing the conditions to be observed when livestock, including calves, are transported in this country. These are enforced by local authorities and the police. As at present advised, I am doubtful whether there is any need for further regulations, but if hon. Members have any particular points in mind and will let me know. I will gladly consider them.

Mr. Henderson: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a recent report in the national Press stating that in one instance 98 young calves were transported nearly 300 miles in one cattle truck in indescribable conditions? Does he not consider some action ought to be taken to prevent cruelty of this kind?

Mr. Amory: I agree that every possible action should be taken to prevent cruelty. That incident, I believe, was not a recent one but occurred last year.

Mr. Henderson: Last month.

Mr. Amory: No. I think that that incident to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred—certainly if it is the one I am thinking of—occurred last year. Enforcement action is a matter for the local authorities.

Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the features which is most unsatisfactory is the manner of the provision of milk for the calves to drink en route? It seems that calves are expected to drink as adults drink instead of being helped with sucking instruments, which are on the market, and the use of which would improve matters enormously.

Mr. Amory: I will look into the matter my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Willey: In view of the representations which are being made, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether further regulations are necessary?

Mr. Amory: I have the matter under consideration all the time. As I am at present advised, I cannot see what additional regulations we could usefully make, but if and when additional regulations may be useful I shall certainly consider making them.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the movement of these very young calves to market always involves a great deal of cruelty? Why should they not be slaughtered on the farms and moved as carcasses?

Mr. Amory: The difficulty in general, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, is with the slaughtering facilities. We want to ensure that they really are humane, and they can be better controlled at the slaughterhouses.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Moyle: On a point of order. I think, Mr. Speaker, the Minister was ans—wering with the Question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) my Question No. 51—
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his regulations governing the sale of unweaned calves and the conditions under which such calves are transported, and what steps are taken to enforce them.
May I, therefore, put a supplementary question before the next Question is called?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman did not say he was going to reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question and the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) together, or, if he did, I did not hear him say so, I was going to call the hon. Gentleman's Question separately.

Mr. Moyle: In considering the transport of unweaned calves, would the Minister be good enough to ask his inspectors to have a look at the West Country and West Wales, where, I am advised, there are certain collective hideouts where people trafficking in unweaned calves collect the calves and then transport them to London in conditions which, to say the least, are deplorable? I do ask the Minister to direct his attention and that of his officials to that matter.

Mr. Amory: I must apologise to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) for omitting to ask permission to answer his Question at the same time as I answered the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). I will certainly look into the matter which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen has raised. I attach very great weight to his opinions in these matters.

Slaughterhouse, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now approve the construction of an abattoir in Sunderland.

Mr. Amory: The proposal of the Sunderland Corporation to build a slaughterhouse has my support, but a loan for its construction cannot be sanctioned at present. In the meantime, the Corporation is proceeding with the preparation of working plans and specifications.

Mr. Willey: While I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, may I ask him, in view of the fact that the conditions in the slaughterhouse in Sunderland have been officially described as quite deplorable, to see if he could push this business through? We have waited a very long time, and it is really time we had a new abattoir.

Mr. Amory: I will give it as high priority as I can.

Fishing Vessels (Claims)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet considered the claims of fishermen for gear damaged by Russian vessels; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Amory: These claims have been examined and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is transmitting them to the appropriate Soviet authorities.

Lady Tweedsmuir: In view of the fact that there has as yet been no reply from the Russian authorities to the representations made by the Foreign Office on behalf of Scottish fishermen, will my right hon. Friend see that those claims which he has mentioned are transmitted with a sense of urgency?

Mr. Amory: They are on their way at the present time.

Rabbits

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the failure of his campaign to prevent the increase of rabbits in agricultural areas through the carelessness of a few people who have neglected to destroy the few rabbits on their land; and what action he proposes to take in the limited time still available to him before the rabbit again becomes an expensive and wasteful pest.

Mr. Amory: I agree that there is scope for much more vigorous action against rabbits by many occupiers. Where, after due warning, occupiers fail to carry out their responsibility to deal with rabbits on their land, my officers are instructed to enter and take action under my statutory powers. I shall not hesitate to take vigorous default action as required.

Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such action is not likely to prove effective, that the rabbit is all but out of control again, and that unless after this harvest he manages somehow or another, with or without the aid of the police, to have the rabbits put down, we shall once again find the country having to import millions of pounds worth of food every year to make up for what the rabbits have eaten?

Mr. Amory: I think that rabbit control can best be done by voluntary co-operation, as far as that is possible. Where that fails, then, as I say, I shall not hesitate to take default action, which, I believe, is the most effective action which so far we have been able to devise.

Fishing Industry (Committee of Inquiry)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the concern felt about the future of the fishing industry; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the discontent prevailing among fishermen owing to the operation of the herring subsidy; and what action he is taking thereon.

Mr. Amory: The Government have been reviewing the state of the fishing industry in relation to the subsidy arrangements which fall to be made on the expiry of the current schemes at 31st July for white fish and 31st August for herring. Subsidy schemes covering the near and middle water, herring and inshore fleets for the ensuing twelve months are being laid before the House today. The Government have also concluded that the time is opportune for an assessment of the future of the fishing industry as a whole, taking account of present and prospective developments affecting the fishing fleets and fish processing and marketing. It has been decided, therefore, to appoint a Committee of Inquiry whose composition and terms of reference will be announced later.

Lady Tweedsmuir: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his announcement of an inquiry, which we trust will get to the root of the very serious problems of the fishing industry, may I ask how long the inquiry is expected to take? In view of the grave and particular difficulties of the Scottish white fish industry, of which he is well aware, will he consider increasing the grants and loans for new buildings under the present schemes, as the subsidy, particulars of which are published today, will not meet these very serious problems?

Mr. Amory: The inquiry, which I think will be a broad one, covering all aspects of the industry, will inevitably take quite a time. As to the present subsidy scheme, the grants and loans at present being made are on a generous scale. As to the subsidy scheme in general for the ensuing period, we shall have a chance of debating that when the Order, which is being laid today, comes up for debate within the next two or three weeks.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do anything to deal with the special grievances of the fishermen of the Clyde, who have been on strike for the first time in history? Will he do anything to remedy the injustices to them?

Mr. Amory: That again is something on which, when the hon. Member has seen the Order, he will know what our proposals are for the ensuing period. That also is a subject which we hope to debate when the Order comes before the House. The increase in the subsidy to the herring industry made a month or two ago was a considerable one and the fishermen whom the hon. Member has in mind benefit directly from it.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Will the inquiry cover the possible merging of the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority, to produce greater efficiency in connection with grants and loans for the fishing industry?

Mr. Amory: It will be a very broad inquiry covering all aspects of the industry.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask whether this is the same policy as the one which the right hon. Gentleman outlined to the Conservative private meeting, and why it was not announced to the House first? Will all branches of the fishing industry be invited to give evidence to the inquiry?

Mr. Amory: The meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes was held before any firm decision had been reached and therefore there was no question of any decision being announced to that meeting. I certainly imagine that all branches of the industry will have an opportunity of giving evidence before the inquiry.

Mr. Fell: Can my right hon. Friend say who will be the members of the committee of inquiry and how long he thinks it will take for the committee to report?

Mr. Amory: The membership has not yet been decided. As to the, period, I mentioned just now that as the inquiry will be covering all aspects of the industry I think it will take a considerable time.

Mr. Lewis: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? It will be my intention to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. Should I do so now or after any Ministerial statements have been made?

Mr. Speaker: It should come before public business starts.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Dr. DICKSON MABON: To ask the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Ordnance Factory, at Bishopton, Renfrewshire.

Mr. SWINGLER: To ask the Minister of Supply when he will be in a position to make a statement on the future of the Royal Ordnance factories.

Mr. H. FRASER: To ask the Minister of Supply whether he will now make a statement on the future of the Royal Ordnance factories.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): I will, with permission, make a statement in answer to Questions Nos. 52, 53 and 58.
While the Royal Ordnance factories will remain an essential part of our defence organisation, recent developments have reduced the capacity required, and a number must be closed.
First, closure of the fuze factory at Maltby and the filling factories at Swynnerton and Thorp Arch will begin immediately, though it will be several months before work comes to an end.
Secondly, the factory at Dalmuir will cease tank production on completion of the present programme, late in 1958.
Thirdly, the dismantling of the T.N.T. factory at Irvine will begin immediately. There is a programme at this factory of breaking down ammunition which will continue to provide employment until some time in 1959.
Fourthly, on present estimates of work available, it will be necessary to close down the shell factory at Wigan and the small arms factory at Poole some time in 1959–60.
With the help of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I shall try to dispose of these factories to industrial concerns which can provide a fresh source of employment. I am happy to say that Babcock and Wilcox have decided, in principle, to acquire the Damuir factory and to feed in their own work as defence work comes to an end. I expect very shortly to complete with them the detailed negotiation of terms.
The factories that are retained will be kept equipped with up-to-date plant, and I shall try to bring increasingly to them appropriate work on newer types of weapons. They will be regarded as a preferred source for the sorts of munitions they are equipped to produce. In addition, civil work will be accepted when it helps to keep in being management and labour needed for defence, or when the facilities available supplement a shortage of capacity in industry.
In the process of relating Royal Ordnance factory capacity more closely to requirements there is, I regret, bound to be some disturbance to the men and women employed in the factories. To minimise this, as long notice as possible will be given of discharges and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will do his utmost to help those who are displaced to find suitable employment. It is to make the transition easier that I have taken the somewhat unusual step of announcing some of these closures so far in advance.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman's statement will, naturally, give concern to Members of Parliament who represent the various areas affected by the closing down and curtailment of production at these Royal Ordnance factories. I have little doubt that we shall wish to study the statement made by the Minister, and very probably to debate it before the Summer Recess. Meanwhile, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance


that, as far as possible, the work available for defence purposes will be concentrated in the Royal Ordnance factories rather than in private firms?

Mr. Jones: I have no doubt that the question of a debate can be discussed through the usual channels. As to work in private firms and in the Royal Ordnance factories, I think that it was implicit in my statement that the Royal Ordnance factories will be given preference. For the rest, while recognising the disturbance to individuals, I think that the figure involved—7,000 people displaced over two-and-a-half years—should be looked at against a background of a percentage unemployment of 1·5 and a total force employed of 22 million.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, and in some parts of Scotland, unemployment has reached a substantial level? Is he aware that unemployment in my constituency is 6 per cent., and that there is little or no alternative employment? Will he give an assurance that there will be no redundancy at the Bishopton factory and that every effort will be made by his Ministry to ensure that the factory will be employed at full capacity?

Mr. Jones: It is implicit in my statement that the Bishopton factory will remain in being but, of course, I cannot give any assurance that the level of employment there will be kept stable.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend consider that if there is any spare capacity in the Radway Green Factory it should be let to private enterprise, if the building is suitable, to work alongside the Royal Ordnance factory?

Mr. Jones: It is implicit in my statement that Radway Green will be required for defence purposes.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that his statement will be regarded in my constituency as an unimaginative and doctrinaire decision? Why do the Government not create fresh employment in these areas? Why do they not, as the Labour Government did after the war, convert the factories to civil use where they are no longer required for defence purposes? What further redundancies are projected in North Staffordshire as a result of the decision to close all or part of the Swynnerton factory?
Is the Minister aware that there is 2½ per cent, unemployment in North Staffordshire already? What consultations has he had with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about this?

Mr. Jones: To switch these factories over to civil work would entail the establishment of new design teams and new selling teams. In other words, it would duplicate work already being done in the private field. Surely it is a far more economical use of resources to integrate these factories in existing organisations than to set up new organisations.
I appreciate that the level of unemployment in the Potteries is somewhat higher than elsewhere, 1·9 per cent. as distinct from 1·5 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has this very much in mind.

Mr. McAdden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although an indication has not so far been given to him, there are many hon. Members who would like to feel that it is possible to reduce our expenditure on and our production of armaments of various kinds, and that there are many hon. Members who would not wish us to maintain employment in the manufacture of armaments when that employment might usefully be directed elsewhere? Would he suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is rather hypocritical of them to argue that there ought to be a run-down in armaments and then to argue that people ought to be continually employed on producing them?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. The steps I have announced will, in fact, bring about quite a substantial reduction in the amount of money we now spend in maintaining in being facilities which are not used.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his reply to my hon. Friend's supplementary question he revealed that the Government are actuated more by ideological reasons than defence reasons, and that we feel that there is a great principle involved in keeping the production of armaments a public rather than a private matter?
The trade unions are worried because proper arrangements are not being made to keep together any of the teams of people who have been responsible for production and because a real effort is not being made to find them proper and alternative employment.

Mr. Jones: As for the hon. Gentleman's point about armaments from public or private sources, I would only repeat that the Royal Ordnance factories, for this purpose, will be regarded as a preferred source. For the rest, when unemployment is only at a level of 1·5 per cent. and when the economy is still expanding, there should not be any undue difficulty in absorbing the displaced workers.

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RESETTLEMENT BOARD

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Major LEGGE-BOURKE: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on payments to British nationals expelled from Egypt.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer Ques-No. 85.
As hon. Members know, the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board was set up earlier this year to deal with those British subjects who were arriving in this country from Egypt, who were in need.
Her Majesty's Government have been considering whether the definition of hardship under which the Board at present operates should be drawn somewhat wider to include those concerned who are suffering hardship through being deprived of access to their assets.
We have decided that this can best be achieved by a scheme of ex gratia loans as a measure of interim assistance. These payments will be calculated on the basis of the declarations of assets registered with the Foreign Office.
The scale runs from a figure of 70 per cent. for reckonable assets of £2,000 or less up to £5,000 where reckonable assets to the value of over £20,000 have been declared.
I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the scheme.

Major Legge-Bourke: While warmly welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, may I ask whether he could say whether the declaration of assets to which he referred will include securities held by the applicants both in Egypt and in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lloyd: What is reckonable will be set out in detail in particulars which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend that they include bank balances, cash deposits and securities in Egypt, and also securities on deposit in the United Kingdom.

Following are the particulars:

1. Applications

Applications for loans should be made to the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, 3. Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, S.W.1. The Board will consult the Foreign Office who will, in accordance with the declarations of individual assets registered with it, determine the amount of each applicant's reckonable assets. The Board will then make payment in accordance with the scale in paragraph 3 below.

2. Basis of payments

The assets reckonable for the purpose of the scheme will be the following tangible items:

Land.
Buildings.
Furniture and personal effects.
Vehicles, boats and livestock.
Bank balances, cash deposits and securities in Egypt.
Articles deposited for safe keeping.
Indemnities.
Water, gas, electricity and Customs deposits.
Securities on deposit in the United Kingdom.

Where declarations already made do not include assets held in banks in this country to which access cannot be obtained, applicants for loans should, when applying to the Resettlement Board, send a statement of these assets, substantiated where possible by a banker's statement.

3. Scale

The scale of payments will be as follows:


Reckonable assets declared and Amount of Loan


Up to £2,000 70 per cent.
£1,400 max.


£2,001–£2,500 £1,400 (70 per cent. of first £2,000) plus
£100= £1,500


£2,501–£3,000 £1,400 (70 per cent. of first £2,000) plus
£200= £1,600


£3,001–£5,000 £1,400 (70 per cent, of first £2,000) plus
£600= £2,000


£5,001–£10,000 £1,400 (70 per cent. of first £2,000) plus
£1,300= £2,700


£10,001–£15,000 £1,400 (70 per cent. of first £2,000) plus
£2,000= £3,400


£15,001–£20,000 £1,400 (70 per cent, of first £2,000) plus
£2,700= £4,100


£20,001 and over
= £5,000

4. Persons eligible

Persons eligible for payments under the scheme are all British nationals who left Egypt as a result of the events of last year, and who have, before 15th July, 1957, registered declarations of assets with the Foreign Office.

5. Relationship to previous loans from Resettlement Board

In making payment under this scheme, no account will be taken of the grants made previously by the Resettlement Board, nor of advances against Egyptian pensions. But loans which have been made by the Board will be taken into account in calculating the amount to he loaned under the scheme. It will be for the individual to decide whether he is eligible in respect of hardship for the scheme and, if so, whether he wishes to take advantage of it. Rut, once he has done so, he will not normally he eligible for further help from the Resettlement Board.

6. Duration of scheme

Applications for loans should be lodged within three months, but refugees now in the care of the Board who have not by that date been able to resettle themselves here, or whose emigration arrangements have been delayed, may defer their application with the consent of the Board.

7. Repayment

The Board when making payment will ask each individual to sign an undertaking to repay. But no one will be asked to make any repayment until he can receive a return from the Egyptian Government in respect of his individual claim.

RENT ACT, 1957 (PRESCRIBED FORMS)

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The failure of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make readily available Form G under the 1957 Rent Act at the principal booksellers and stationers, and thereby failing in his statutory obligation to make these forms available as laid down under the Act, and thus failing to protect the tenants of the country.
In support, Sir, may I point out to you that the Minister himself has issued a booklet as a guide to tenants, and in it he states that these forms can be readily obtainable at principal booksellers and stationers. I have tried, and many of my hon. Friends have tried throughout the country, to get these forms. Even though such people as old-age pensioners have to pay not only 6d. for the form, but an additional 25 per cent. Purchase Tax, they cannot get these forms except

from a few progressive local borough councils, such as my own in West Ham. Therefore, I would urge upon you and the House that this is a definite matter of public importance, that it is urgent, and that it is important to tenants throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The failure of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make readily available Form G under the 1957 Rent Act at the principal booksellers and stationers, and thereby failing in his statutory obligation to make these forms available as laid down under the Act, and thus failing to protect the tenants of the country.
I have heard what the hon. Member has said for the first time. It seems to be a complaint about a failure to issue a form. I cannot recall any occasion when the failure to issue a form was regarded as a matter of urgent public importance. Although there is no doubt matter here for proper administrative criticism of the Minister, it does not fall within the Standing Order.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point, Sir, can you therefore advise me and the people of the country what remedy they have? [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. Many of my hon. Friends know of old-age pensioners on very limited means who cannot obtain these forms, even though it is laid down by Act of Parliament that the Minister should make them available. What remedy have we?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member does not need my advice as to how he can raise a matter properly in Parliament. He could certainly ask the Minister a Question, or initiate a discussion on the matter in some other way. It is for himself to find a proper opportunity.

Mr. Paget: In asking leave to move this Motion, my hon. Friend did not tell you, Sir, what this form is. This form is a necessary procedure for the tenant if he is to save his home. The absence of this form, and its immediate availability, puts each home in danger. With great respect, surely that is a matter of public importance. The Statute puts on the Minister a duty to produce this form. His failure to do so endangers the homes of millions of people.

Mr. Speaker: I have never had any doubt as to its public importance. Of course, I naturally accept what is told roe by the hon. Member as true, and on that basis I have no trouble about the public importance aspect. However, all matters of public importance are not within Standing Order No. 9 from the point of view of urgency. Accepting what is told me, it seems to me that this is an administrative error which should be altered in another way, not under the Standing Order.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an element of urgency in the matter which has not yet been covered by my hon. Friends? Unless I am mistaken, the Statute lays down that the particulars required by the form shall be served, on the form, upon the landlord on or before 17th August next. On 17th August the House will not be sitting. There is a statutory obligation upon the Minister to make the form available, and there is an immediate urgency because a great many people are involved and the statutory latest date is fairly soon and certainly only a short time after Parliament adjourns. Does not this supply the element of urgency added to the element of public importance which may have been lacking so far?

Mr. Speaker: I do not really think so. I think that there is plenty of time to get a matter of this sort put right. I have no doubt that what has been said today will have its effect. However, on what is before me at the moment, I could not find this within the Standing Order.

Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of order. This really is a matter of considerable urgency, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members who have been in their constituencies this weekend have learned with dismay and alarm that it is not possible for tenants to obtain these forms. We have no assurance whatever that the forms will be forthcoming within a reasonable time. Although it may be some days before 17th August, it takes time before the forms can be obtained, and the filling in of the form is not particularly easy. I submit that it is a very shocking thing that, after all the debates in this House and all the argument there has been, the Government have failed to provide forms in time for the tenants to fill them in. I submit, in support of the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for

West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), that this is a matter of definite urgent public importance which warrants debate in the House.

Mr. Speaker: I had no notice whatsoever of this matter, of course, and I confess that I am not as well up in the intricacies of these matters as some hon-Members are, but on what is before me I certainly could not agree that it is within the Standing Order. Also, I have not the advantage of any information about it from the other side. I ought to hear both sides.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): As you have suggested. Mr. Speaker, that you would like to hear something from both sides of the House about this matter, perhaps I might point out that this is the first that I or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government have heard of the difficulty which has been experienced by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: We are already discussing a point of order. Let us finish one at a time. Mr. Butler.

Mr. Butler: Mr. Butlerrose—

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. When I spoke—

Mr. Speaker: We are still on a point of order. The hon. Member must wait until we have disposed of the present point of order before he raises another one.

Mr. Lewis: But the Minister has said something that is untrue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We have had a speech on the point of order from the Opposition. Now we are to have a speech on the point of order from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Butler: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue my speech on the point of order.
Notice was not given to you, Mr. Speaker, to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, or to the Government of the point which the hon. Member for West Ham, North saw fit to raise. I submit that if the


hon. Member wishes to get satisfaction on points like this one, it would be very much more satisfactory if he would give notice to the Minister responsible that he desires to raise them, and then we on our side should be able to give an answer worthy of the point which is put to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I should just like to say—I really think that the House will be with me on this—that it is not reasonable, on what I have heard today, to find that this matter comes within the Standing Order. These are very important things, and they create precedents. I have only one set of facts on the subject. Without prejudice to the issue of the urgency of the matter, I will look into it between now and tomorrow and find out what I can do about it and see whether the matter can be disposed of soon, because I realise that to some hon. Members—indeed, to all of us—it is an important matter. However, on what I have before me I must adhere to my decision.

Mr. Lewis: I thank you for your remarks, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am sure the House is much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for the undertaking which you have given. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will also arrange for a statement to be made in the House on behalf of the Government in reply to the allegation which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), because it needs explaining? A statement ought to be made.

Mr. Butler: Certainly, Sir. The first thing we shall do is to bring the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I cannot give any assurance that he will make a statement, but, naturally, he will be available to answer at the earliest possible notice any question about the matter which is put to

him. Then perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham, North will receive the latest information, which the Government will he only too glad to give him.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there really is a very grave shortage of forms? It is not something which has happened just in one constituency. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite, if they were interested in this matter, would have had the same experience in their constituencies. Therefore, I support the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that the Minister should tomorrow—when, Mr. Speaker, as you have been kind enough to say, you will make a further statement—come to the House and give us the statement that we want.

Mr. Butler: The Leader of the Opposition has always informed us through the usual channels when an incident like this has been likely to occur. I am not absolutely clear that he was aware of this question. If he or his right hon. Friends were aware of it, I am sure that they would have let us know. Now that we are aware of it, we will take the necessary action to give the House the information it desires.

Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps I might inform the right hon. Gentleman that I was in my constituency this weekend and received many complaints on this point from my constituents.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: I have given my decision on the point of order, and I ought not to be argued with about it. I have given the matter most careful consideration. I think that what I have suggested is the safe course to take. I do not want to lead the House astray.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, AND MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1957–58

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st March, 1958, for the following services connected with Cyprus, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1957–58, AND MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1957–58



£


Class II, Vote 7 (Colonial Office)
10


Class II, Vote 8 (Colonial Services)
10


Class II, Vote 1 (Foreign Service)
10


Ministry of Defence
10


Total
£40

CYPRUS

3.58 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: It is now five months since we called the Government to account for the failure of their policy for Cyprus. During the time that has elapsed since we last debated the matter in the House, no one can pretend that the Government's policy has been transformed from one of unrelieved failure into one of glorious success.
Indeed, if the theme of the last debate was the failure of the Government's policy, I think that the theme of this debate might be the failure of the Government to have a policy, because our complaint today must be that during the last five months the Government have approached the problem by means of a series of negotiations, without taking any positive or constructive action to lower the tension in Cyprus, or to bring together the elements in the population which have to live together if the island is to pursue its future peaceably.
It has been suggested that we are, perhaps, asking for this debate at the

wrong moment, and that the Government are, though tardily, engaged in some discussions. They have had months to conduct discussions. They have had at least since March to hold any conversations which they wished to hold. With whom are conversations taking place? There are no conversations with the Greeks, none with the Turks. Archbishop Makarios has not been brought into discussions.
All that has happened is that the talks which we are now told that the Government are having are talks between the Colonial Secretary, on the one hand, and the Government's servant in Cyprus, on the other. Of course, it is very proper that Sir John Harding should be consulted about any decisions on the future of Cyprus, but I cannot think that it is embarrassing to the Government—at least, it ought not to be embarrassing to the Government if they know their minds and speak with a united voice—to have a discussion about the matter in the House of Commons when they are discussing with their own servants what the next development in their policy is to be.
Within a matter of three weeks the House will be rising for the Summer Recess. We shall be away for three months and there will not be an opportunity to question the Government, for what satisfaction that may be. I am bound to say that all we secure from the Colonial Secretary when he answers our Questions is a series of what the Manchester Guardian calls "elegant evasions." He has not carried this matter forward one iota since the end of March.
It is because of the failure of the Government to take an initiative in this matter that we believe it proper to bring it to the attention of the Committee today and to try once more to secure a statement from the Government of their policy. If we cannot get a statement from them, at least the country will know that they are unable, even yet, to state their views and the public will realise that they are unable to speak their mind because their mind is divided, because they are a Government who are not of one mind. At least, the country will know where we stand on this issue.
Since the middle of March, there has been a truce in Cyprus and, thank God, there has not been a single political


murder. But we have had nothing but indecision and drift from the Government. They have failed to take advantage of the opportunity which the cessation of violence presented. All they did was to give E.O.K.A. an opportunity to regroup. They gave Archbishop Makarios propaganda material. They gave him an opportunity of stating his case throughout the world. They themselves took not a single positive political step towards bringing a period of pacification and a measure of constitutional reform to the island.
Let us, shortly, review what has happened since we last debated the subject on 19th February. A month later, E.O.K.A. offered a truce on condition that Archbishop Makarios was released and that negotiations with him were resumed. There is no doubt that E.O.K.A. had been somewhat savagely mauled by the 20,000 British troops stationed in the island. Indeed, it would be surprising if it had not been, and that may have influenced E.O.K.A.'s approach to the offer. Nevertheless, the offer was made and the Government immediately found themselves confronted with the need to make a reply, divided though they were on the problem of Cyprus and the question of the Archbishop's release.
Through the Colonial Secretary the Government made an offer. They said that if Archbishop Makarios would make a clear, public statement calling for the cessation of violence by E.O.K.A., a new situation would be created. As anyone might have foreseen, the Archbishop evaded the issue in his reply. Of course he did. The Government are dealing with Archbishop Makarios, not with a single cleric. I do not know whether the Government fully appreciated that they would not get the appeal necessary from him. Lord Salisbury did.
The Archbishop made a very clever reply. He said that he would appeal to E.O.K.A. to declare a cessation of all operations if the British Government would show a spirit of understanding by simultaneously abolishing the state of emergency. He threw the ball back into the Government's court. He said that he would appeal to E.O.K.A. to cease violence if the Government would repeal the state of emergency. He laid clown a number of other conditions—that talks should he resumed directly between the

British Government and the Cypriot people, that he should be allowed to return to the island, that an amnesty should be granted for all political offences. All those conditions were quite outside any concessions which the Government intended to make.
The Colonial Secretary therefore came to the House of Commons at 3.30 one afternoon and, without telling us one word of what was in the Archbishop's reply, announced that the Government had decided to release him. He said:
The Archbishop has now made a statement, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down.
He dared not have issued it before he sat done, because of his back benchers. He went on:
While Her Majesty's Government cannot regard this statement as the clear appeal for which they asked"—
it was not a clear appeal, it was clear defiance of Her Majesty's Government—
nevertheless they consider that in present circumstances it is no longer necessary to continue the Archbishop's detention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1957; Vol. 567. c. 1355–6.]
There is no doubt that in this respect and to this extent Lord Salisbury was right when in his letter of resignation to the Prime Minister he said that the, Archbishop had deliberately refrained from responding to the appeal to cease violence. He said:
On the contrary, he has imposed a condition so far-reaching that the Government have to state quite frankly that they cannot do whir he asks …he will be able to edge us along from point to point, with increasing injury to that close and confident relationship with Turkey which should, to my mind, be the main basis of British policy in the Middle East at the present time.
Lord Salisbury said that while remaining a full supporter of the Government on every other issue, he would, therefore, resign. He was right to do so, because the Government had released Archbishop Makarios without getting from him any of the conditions about appeals which he should have made and which they said he must make if he were to be released.
The Prime Minister had already said that it was an act of statesmanship and that we had shown generosity and magnanimity. The Government thought that they would meet a similar response from the Archbishop. With whom did they think they were dealing? It is not


magnanimity, it is not generosity to lay down conditions upon which one proposes to act and then to run away from them. That is not generosity, but weakness and, of course, the Archbishop recognised that it was weakness. The Colonial Secretary discovered, as many other gaolers before him have discovered, that it is far easier to lock up a man than to find a good reason for releasing him if he will not recant. The Archbishop was becoming an embarrassment in the Seychelles and the Government wanted to get rid of him and get him away from those islands.
I follow the Colonial Secretary in that respect, but if one goes as far as that, what is the point of the release, if it is not followed up? Why did the Government leave the situation in that suspended state? If the Government were willing to put themselves in a position where they were ready to lose one of their most prominent supporters and ready to risk a division in their own ranks—it is well known that a number of Conservatives see exactly eye to eye with Lord Salisbury on this matter—having carried out this act of statesmanship, the next and most practical step was to pursue the matter by holding talks with responsible spokesmen of the Cypriot people.
One course or the other is logical—either to keep him there and sit on the people of Cyprus, or to release him and bring him into conversations. But to release him and give him the platform that he has in Athens at present, so that he can spread about all the allegations that he may do, without any answer from the British Government, because they are unable, unwilling or too inert to take the initiative, seems to me to be getting the worst of all possible worlds.
I do not understand why the Government are so "choosy" about Archbishop Makarios. Why do we draw the line at him? There are plenty of other people to whom the Government have been willing to talk and make up to. If I read the Press aright, at present discussions are going on which will bring the British Government and Colonel Nasser together. Why can we stomach Nasser and not be able to treat with Makarios? Looking at it from the Government's point of view, what is the essential difference, if British interests and the interests of the people of Cyprus are involved? Their flabby inertness over the

last few months has rightly earned them the condemnation of their own Right wing and everyone who believes that progress should be made in this constitutional impasse.
The have seized upon every statement that the Archbishop has made in order to show how intractable he is. They say, "Look at his attitude about future discussions. He writes to us and says, by way of a letter to the British Ambassador in Athens, I am ready and willing to take part, on behalf of the people of Cyprus, in bilateral talks.'" The Government then get on their high horse and say, "Bilateral talks with the Archbishop? Oh, no. Of course not. There are other and wider interests which have a right to be consulted. We are not going to indulge in bilateral talks with the Archbishop. We have to take into account many other interests."
I do not know what other hon. Members thought this statement meant when they read it originally, but I assumed that the Archbishop meant bilateral talks about the internal future and self-government of Cyprus. If the Government had been in earnest about trying to secure a settlement in Cyprus, why did not they take the trouble to find out what the Archbishop meant, instead of indulging in a long-range shouting match with him? They have a whole phalanx of Foreign Office officials in Athens at their disposal—a whole galaxy of stars.
Anyone could have found out, through the medium of the Greek Foreign Office—even if they could not talk with the Archbishop himself—what he meant by bilateral talks. But no one found out—or if he did the Government did not tell us. I have a strong and shrewd suspicion that the Government did know, but it was left to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) to interview the Archbishop and to tell us, last week, what was in his mind on this issue.
The noble Lord was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary until he resigned because of his disagreement over the Government's Suez policy, and I think that no one will doubt either the noble Lord's ability or courage. The noble Lord asked the Archbishop a number of questions and received answers to them. I quote the following:
(Q) Do you consider that your present position is not weakened by your insistence


on bilateral talks? (A) What I meant by bilateral talks is that the talks should be between Cyprus and Great Britain, that Greece and Turkey should not take part.
(Q)You are prepared that the Turkish minority should join in these limited talks? (A) But certainly, they are part of the people of Cyprus.
(Q) To what degree would they participate? (A) Of course, it would have to be in a proportionate degree; they must not have the same say as ourselves as they would veto all our suggestions.
Why should not the Government have found out that that was the Archbishop's attitude? Or did they know and not want to act upon it?
I will ask the Colonial Secretary very straightly this question: is he ready to enter into negotiations with representatives of the Greek Cypriots—of whom I have no doubt that Archbishop Makarios would be one—and representatives of the Turkish Cypriots in London, or at any other convenient place, to settle, if possible, or, at any rate, to commence negotiations about, the constitutional future of Cyprus? That is a question about which, when they decide their policy, we have a right to an answer from the Government this afternoon. It is a simple question and they should be able to tell us the answer.
Unless the Colonial Secretary gives a clear and categorical affirmative answer that he is ready to discuss the future of the island with the Greek and Turkish Cypriots he is guilty of the grossest had faith, because for months we have been led to believe that he needed only a cessation of violence in the island to enable constitutional progress to be made.
Every one of us in this House must have drawn that inference from the Colonial Secretary's speech. Four months have gone by and not a shot has been fired—and not a word of invitation has been spoken by the Colonial Secretary to these people to come to London and have talks. Why not? This is part of our indictment of the Colonial Secretary.
The second request that I wish to make to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government is that they should disabuse themselves, or, at any rate, some of their supporters, of the ridiculous notion that partition would be any solution to the problems of Cyprus. On 19th December last the Colonial Secretary—and here I

am paraphrasing his words—said that partition, to him, would be an extremely distasteful act of policy, and that it was the last measure to which he would turn. But he has not gone far enough. It is not enough to say that it is the last act of policy if all else fails; he should say that it is not within the realms of practical politics. Surely we do not need any historical or political parallels to convince this or any other Government that partition will not be a solution in Cyprus, any more than it has been in any of the other territories in which it has been tried.

Mr. Walter Elliot: Rubbish.

Mr. Callaghan: I know that the hon. Member was one of the first—

Mr. G. R. Howard: Right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Callaghan: Right hon. Gentleman. I would not deprive him of that privilege. It is the only one that he is likely to get. He is never likely to be a member of a Conservative Front Bench again.
I know that it was his brain-child and I know that he has a great affection for it, but does he really wish us to debate the issue that partition in Ireland has been a success, or that the state in which Palestine has been left has been an unmitigated success? Does he say that what has happened in Kashmir as a result of partition has been a great success? Surely these are matters beyond dispute.

Mr. Elliot: The only matter for discussion this afternoon is when partition is to take place. Unless the hon. Gentleman and his friends understand that, the debate is unreal.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that what I have had to say had sufficient justification, in view of the statement that it has brought forth from the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that he will meet a very great deal of dissent not only from this side of the House but from his own side if that is his view. It is a terrible tragedy that a man who knows so much and is so wise about so many things should be so stupid and childlike about the issue of the partition of an island like Cyprus. He is doing no service to his Government, or to the people of Cyprus, by advocating this proposal.

Mr. I.J. Pitman: Mr. I.J. Pitman (Bath)rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry, but I must push on. I have given way to one interruption. Let me have my say now and I will give way later on.
I have said all that I wish to say about the subject of partition, namely, that the Colonial Secretary should rule it out completely from all our discussions. I now come to another unrealistic matter, in which the Government surprise even me. I am glad that the Minister of Defence is here.
I refer to the question of the future of Cyprus as a strategic base. Here is an island, a Colony, which, quite clearly, we did not keep to ourselves because it brought us no material trading advantages. We held Cyprus because we were told—Sir Anthony Eden told us—that it was essential to our oil supplies and to cover our lines of communication in the Middle East. We were told more. When the Greek Cypriots said that they were willing to allow the British a base on the island, what was the Government's reply? They said, "A base on the island is not enough; what we need is Cyprus as a base, not a base on Cyprus." For three years we were told this.
Indeed, the money that the Government have been pouring out will bring tears to the eyes of any Chancellor of the Exchequer who today is grubbing round for a few hundred thousand pounds in an effort to see what economies he can effect. No less than £12½ million have already been spent or committed in the last three years—am I right?—to translate Cyprus into a base, and now the Minister of Defence returns from Cyprus and his other visits in the Middle East to say that what we really need in Cyprus is not an island as a base after all; what we need is a couple of airstrips so that atomic bombers may fly off in pursuance of our defence against the U.S.S.R.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The hon. Gentleman is not quoting a statement of mine, is he?

Mr. Callaghan: No, but I am interpreting it exactly. The Minister of Defence is quite capable of interrupting again to deny what I am saying. Is he, in fact, saying—does he wish to deny it—that he does not any longer want Cyprus as a base and that all he needs is a base on

Cyprus? Because that was the substance of the interview which he gave on television, which I myself watched.

Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to a television interview which I gave in which I dealt with the question of the location of the Middle East Headquarters, which is quite a different thing.

Mr. Callaghan: We shall see how far it is a different thing when the Government's new defence policy finally becomes an accomplished fact.
Meantime, I adhere to my view that what we are witnessing is a strategic somersault by the Government which will throw away £12½ million, already spent or committed in Cyprus, because the right hon. Gentleman will make his base in a different area. I challenge the Minister of Defence, when the statement is made, to try to deny it then. He knows the conclusion to which he is coming. Look at the folly of it.
The Government, in three years, have brought Greece and Turkey to the edge of war. They have strained our relationship in N.A.T.O. and they have strained the Bagdad Pact [Laughter.] Yes, they have strained the Bagdad Pact nearly as much as their folly over Suez did. I do not know which hon. Members opposite would prefer to have as being the prime cause for any weaknesses in the Bagdad Pact; whether it was their stupidity over Suez or their folly over Cyprus. Both have been very contributory factors.
For three years the Government have repressed the island, which is under a military dictatorship, and now they tell us, "It was all for nothing; what we need is a couple of airstrips. We intend to remove the base, abandon the money and the headquarters that have been built there."
The Government are guilty not only of a great waste of public money, not only of straining our relations with our allies unnecessarily, but are guilty, so far as the people of Cyprus are concerned, of sacrificing their hopes as free men to choose their own Government for the sake of an apparently non-vital British strategic base. That seems to me to be the height of folly and of madness.
This island has lived for two years under a state of emergency. There are at this moment in the gaols men who have been sentenced to death, but the sentence has not been carried out. I joined with a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House in appealing to the Governor not to carry out these sentences. I am grateful to him for listening to our appeal. I am certain that the course he took was the course of statesmanship and wisdom, and I do not believe that he will regret having suspended those sentences.
There are many other matters. There are still nearly 1,000 men and women under detention in Cyprus. A charge has not been brought against them and a prosecution has not been heard. They are behind barbed wire and, so far as I can tell, they are likely to remain behind barbed wire. What do the Government intend to do? How long is this situation to continue before they release more than a handful? I believe that 25 have been released, but there are nearly 1,000 subjects languishing behind barbed wire today. We wish to know from the Government what they intend to do about this situation, which is doing the name of Britain no good anywhere throughout the world.
I want to mention another matter. That is the constantly repeated allegations of brutality on the part of certain of the British security forces. I have read a great deal of what has been said by Archbishop Makarios and other organs of Cypriot and Greek opinion, alleging atrocities against some of our own security officers. It did not make pleasant reading.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: No one believes him.

Mr. Callaghan: Maybe no one in this Committee believes him—maybe no hon. Member opposite believes him—hut there are plenty of people throughout the world who will believe many of these atrocity stories.
I want to state my own position. It is very simple. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) have themselves been to a gaol in this country in which they have seen men who alleged that atrocities have

been committed and that they have been subjected to brutal treatment in the course of obtaining information.
Let me say quite clearly that I am certain that Sir John Harding would not tolerate this treatment if he were aware of it. At the same time, these allegations are so numerous, and have been so widespread, that it is simply nonsense for the Government to say, "Sir John Harding has denied them we accept that denial and that is the end of it."
That is not the end of it. These stories can reverberate around the world. I will quote from the most recent of them. On 29th June, an inquest was held into the death of Nicos Georghiou at Limassol by the coroner, Mr. Morgan. He was on the last published list of wanted men. He had been given an E.O.K.A. code name "Botsaris". He was arrested at Sarandi and subsequently died, aged 37. There seems little doubt that he was a member of E.O.K.A. I want to quote from some of the evidence given at the coroner's inquest.
Dr. Clearkin was the Government pathologist. He is an Englishman, and said in the evidence he gave that there were no definite signs of physical injury or pneumonia, but that there was purulent fluid in the bronchial tubes. There was no abrasion or damage to the brain, but an internal haemorrhage had occurred without internal disease. He added that the injury must have been caused by an outside agency, but he could not say when. It could not be caused by a towel tightly tied around the skull. The death was unnatural.
This was the expert pathologist, giving evidence. Bruises in the head were sufficiently severe to have caused the injuries to the brain, perhaps by bumping the head against a hard object. Dr. Clearkin said that with this type of cerebral haemorrhage symptoms would develop within a matter of hours. The coroner returned a verdict that the cause of death was intercranial haemorrhage
occasioned by some unknown external agency of which there is no direct evidence.
Can supporters of the Government sit comfortably in their seats in the light of that factual description?

Captain Waterhouse: He might have banged his head against a wall.

Mr. Callaghan: Of course he might have banged his head against a wall. That is possible; it is also at least possible that there were some people who wanted to secure evidence from this E.O.K.A. suspect and endeavoured to get it by violent means, by banging his head against a wall.
I believe that in view of all these allegations we have reached a stage in this matter at which the Government owe it to the good name of the British people to have them investigated. I have had letters from an English superintendent of police in Cyprus denying that the British policeman would ever indulge in such practices. I am sure he is right. I do not believe a British policeman—the London "bobby" we know—does indulge in these practices, but he is not all the Cyprus Police Force.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) put a Question the other day to ascertain how many members of the security and police forces, whilst nominally of British nationality, were nevertheless recruited from other countries, having served in other police forces. There is quite a considerable number of them.
The next request I want to make of the Government is this. I believe that it is in the interests of us all that an impartial inquiry should be held into allegations such as these so that the truth may be ascertained and proclaimed—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is that the only case?

Mr. Callaghan: The noble Lord ought to bring himself up-to-date on this. There has been a long succession of these allegations in which neither he nor I know the truth. There must be 20, 30 or 40 of them. We say the position has 1een reached at which an impartial inquiry should be held, instead of leaving it to the denial of the Governor on the spot.
The position of the Governor is now being called into question. Sir John Harding has carried out the desires and policy of the Government for a long period. His name has been associated with a period of warfare and violence in which he has been in command of the British troops and has endeavoured—he has now succeeded—to bring it to an end. At least, it has been brought to an end

partially by his efforts. It has also been brought to an end—let the Government make no mistake about this—because E.O.K.A. voluntarily declared a truce.
It is necessary to give the Government a reminder about this, because they misjudged the, situation in August, 1955, when they assumed that E.O.K.A. was beaten and called for surrender terms. The only result was that E.O.K.A. took up arms again. I am desperately anxious—I hope that laughter from the other side of the Committee will not put the Government off—that the Government should not misjudge the situation at this time, although E.O.K.A. was much more badly mauled before the current truce than it was in 1955.
We have now reached the stage at which it would be more advantageous to the future of Cyprus to replace the Governor by a civilian, a civilian who would have some knowledge of political matters, because, if the shooting part of the operation is now over, we want to get into the saddle someone who is really able to judge political issues as a politician. I do not think that I should even object to an ex-member of the Government Front Bench going there. It would be more likely that he would understand the political thinking that is going on in Cyprus at present than would a soldier who, however brave, has had no contact with political matters in the past. I believe it would be in the best interests of us all if Sir John Harding were to give up his post and be replaced by a civilian.
I beg the Government not to be obsessed by the attitude of the Turks to the extent that they apply a veto to any forward moves the Government themselves may want to make. This was Lord Salisbury's great pride. I would remind the Committee that in his letter of resignation he said that he believed that the mainspring, the main basis, of British policy in the Middle East should be a
close and confident relationship with Turkey.
Of course, there is no one here who does not want to see a close and confident relationship with Turkey.
Every one of us here would like to see that relationship with the Turks, who are linked to us both by treaty and by many friendships, continuing, but


we really cannot allow them to blackmail us—or anyone else for that matter. We simply cannot afford to put the Turks into a position in which, by using 20 per cent. of the population of Cyprus, they are able to stop any forward move for the remaining 80 per cent.
If we have a duty, our major duty, clearly, must he with the overwhelming numbers of the population in the island. The Government have badly underplayed their hand with the Turks by allowing them to believe that they have only to raise opposition to what is taking place and what is proposed by the Government for the Government to say, "We cannot strain the ties of the Bagdad Pact or the ties of N.A.T.O. any more; we must yield to the Turks". I do not believe that such yielding ever pays in the long run.
It would be far better for the Government to say to the Turks now, "We want to see the Turkish minority in Cyprus properly safeguarded. We believe that the clauses that were written into the draft constitution by Lord Radcliffe give adequate protection to the Turkish minority. Whether the Radcliffe constitution is finally adopted or not, we—the Government—will see that such protection, or similar protection to that laid down by Lord Radcliffe, is enjoined upon the Greek Cypriots." In parenthesis, I believe that, if the Government said that, they would find there would not be objection from the Greek Cypriots.
If the Government were to take that line with the Turks, I believe they would find that they would solve more problems for themselves than they would create. I simply cannot believe that the Turkish Government value their relationship with us, their membership of the Bagdad Pact and the N.A.T.O. alliance, so lightly that they are willing to throw all this overboard in the face of the most solemn guarantees from the British Government about the treatment of the Turkish minority because, if they did throw them overboard, it would be shown that we had been clinging to a very fickle ally by mistake.
The policy of the Government, in so far as it is based on a desire to please the Turks and not to offend them, is not only doing the Government an injustice, but is doing the people of Cyprus a great

injustice. We are saying to them, "Our interests are such, our relationships with Turkey are of such a character, that we must not give you your freedom. Because we wish to please Turkey, because we wish to avoid any strain on our alliances, you must not have the elementary right of free men to choose your own Government. You may not have the right of free men to build up your own institutions and to choose your own associates. All these things are to be subordinated to the interests of Britain in her relationship with Turkey." A policy based on those considerations is bound to fail.

4.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): At the end of last week, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, I told the House of Commons that the Government were not in a position to make a statement about Cyprus. I said that when my right hon. Friend was in a position to report any progress he would most certainly come to the House. It was against the background of that information that the Opposition still decided to have a debate this afternoon.
I make no complaint; it is the time of the Opposition; but I am sure that the Committee will not expect this afternoon, so soon after what I said last week, to have a policy statement from Her Majesty's Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is there a policy?"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite would listen a little more to what we say from these benches they would not fall into the error of believing that Her Majesty's Government have no policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I hope to outline something of what the Government have done and what we are intending to do, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would wait. It will be better if I try to frame my remarks around the speech which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has just made.
I listened very carefully to all that the the hon. Gentleman had to say. When we strip away the usual trimmings and some of the window-dressing there seem to be four main points in what he put to the Committee. The first concerns what he called the "failure" of Her Majesty's Government to have a policy. He said that Her Majesty's Government


have not gone far enough, but should promote a conference here in London, or somewhere else.
The second point was that we should hold an impartial, judicial inquiry into the allegations of maltreatment of detainees in Cyprus. The third point was that it was time another statement were made on the strategic position in Cyprus; and the fourth point, if I remember it rightly, was that partition should at all costs be ruled out of our thinking. Perhaps I might start by saying something about the allegations of atrocity.
Though I well appreciate that this is a matter in which the whole Committee has an interest, it goes wider than this Committee. This is not the main object of the debate this afternoon, or the main problem with which Her Majesty's Government and all other people are concerned, but I would like to deal with it first. I was glad and interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman did not necessarily associate himself entirely with the allegations that were made. He merely said that they had been made and that, therefore, we ought to have an inquiry.
I would ask the Committee to look at the sources of these accusations. By and large, the accusations have been made either by actual members of E.O.K.A., or by people who are under the influence of that organisation. We all here know that these outlaws have shown themselves utterly indifferent to all civilised principles. They stopped at nothing: terrorism, destruction and, of course, murder. This is a campaign designed to discredit the forces of law and order. It could hardly be expected to pay scrupulous attention to accuracy; indeed, some of the allegations are of the wildest nature. None the less, Sir John Harding and the authorities in Cyprus have investigated all concrete charges and, in the few isolated cases where duty has been exceeded, disciplinary action has been taken.
The other sources of these allegations is Archbishop Makarios himself. He has been spending time recently in Athens giving prominence to a list of what he calls "atrocities". For any man who claims to be a responsible statesman deliberately to promote a smear campaign is serious enough, but for a leading figure of the Church to do so without assuring

himself first of all of the facts is to throw all responsibility to the winds.
How can the Archbishop do other than rely on second-hand information? He has had no opportunity of testing the information simply because he has not been to Cyprus for over a year. [Laughter.] If Hon. Gentleman opposite are going to laugh at this they have failed to see the whole point. Nobody can argue with me that the allegations made by this prelate have anything but foundations of secondhand information.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)rose—

Mr. Profumo: I want to finish this point. Not only is the Archbishop's information second-hand, but it is information which comes at second-hand either from those whose consciences, as the Archbishop has known, have set no limits whatsoever to their activities, or from people who have been made the tools of terrorism.
Indeed, some of the Archbishop's allegations are manifestly absurd. I will take one case and explain it to the Committee. The Archbishop, in the document which he has produced and spoke on the other day, alleged that a certain Miss Loula Kokkinou
had her front teeth knocked out by a blow from a sadistic torturer.
The dental and medical records in Cyprus show that this lady has lost only one of her teeth and that this was extracted a long time before she was arrested.
I wanted to continue and complete that point before the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted me. It bears out what I am asking, which is: how can the Archbishop, not having been able to see and talk to these people, seek, a man in his position, to promote a campaign of this sort without doing what every hon. Member of this Committee has to do before he brings something forward, namely, satisfy himself of the facts?

Mr. Paget: Surely that is the whole point. We are in no better position than anybody else, but we know that a number of allegations have been made. We do not know whether they are valid or not, so let us investigate them.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going a little too far. All I was doing was to explain that we have information from two sources, E.O.K.A.


and the Archbishop, who speaks without assuring himself of the facts.
We have been told of accusations by certain Cypriot prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs. I know that some hon. Members have taken a personal interest in this matter, but I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the position of anybody who really had been through maltreatment, and torture. When entering a prison would not the first thing he to complain to the prison authorities, to show the marks on their bodies—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and to co-operate with the prison doctor to prove what the allegations were?

Miss Jennie Lee: We have been to the prison this morning. We discovered that the chief medical officer of the prison had made a most meticulous examination of these men. I hope that there will be a later opportunity to deal with matters that are in doubt between myself and the Colonial Secretary. It is on the record. What must also be put on the record is that some of these men were threatened with gaol in this country as something worse than had happened to them in Cyprus. They were men coming from a war area to a country where they would not be able to speak the language, where they were examined, and where their bruises were put on record. To ask them to do more than that is outside the laws of ordinary psychology.

Mr. Profumo: I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not wait for me to finish my explanation.
I ask hon. Members: what would be the normal thing to do if one had suffered brutality? In this case, some of the prisoners concerned, whatever they were told about this country and about British prisons, have been in this country over six months, some of them getting on for a year, as the hon. Lady knows very well. At no time did they make any complaints about brutality until, in fact, this campaign of alleged atrocities built itself up, and then they came forward. When, as a result of that, they were by the prison medical officer if they could be examined again, they said, "Is this in connection with the inquiries by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which case, no; we do not want to have any examination."
I am not prejudging this at all. I only want to show the Committee how these

allegations have spread, and, of course, I accept that false reports fly faster than a defence. I should be more inclined to support the suggestion for an independent inquiry if I could see any hope that it would take place in conditions which would enable the truth to be established. We here in this Committee are thinking of a judicial inquiry, and we imagine the calm and free atmosphere of an English court room, but, alas, that is not the case in Cyprus today.
The inquiry would take place against a background of secret fear and intimidation. Any Cypriot who wanted to come forward and tell the truth would certainly have to ask himself how palatable that truth was to E.O.K.A., and, if he did, he would be marked down as a traitor and risk a bullet or a knife in his back, a fate which has befallen large numbers of his own compatriots on the merest suspicion of helping the police.
Hon. Members may remember that when Lord Radcliffe published his constitutional proposals, Cypriots were afraid to come forward and answer his invitation to discuss them simply because it had been declared by E.O.K.A. that it should not happen. How much greater would be the fear of telling an investigating body something which might give the lie to E.O.K.A.'s carefully worked up propaganda campaign? Or even the fear of refusing to give false evidence to the inquiry at E.O.K.A.'s behest? Whatever we did, whatever pledge of secrecy we gave to witnesses, they would still fear that their names would become known, and, I suggest to hon. Members most earnestly, the only results of such an inquiry would be to provide a perfect forum for E.O.K.A. to repeat and elaborate allegations which nobody would dare to come forward and contradict.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend could not make himself responsible for such a travesty of justice, and that is why he declined to arrange for such an inquiry. Several times he has given assurances that all specific allegations will be investigated by the Cyprus Government, and that, when he is able to do it, he will place detailed comments on the outcome of the inquiries in the Library.
May I proceed to what I call the main issue?

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds, may I ask him a question? He has said that prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs had refused a new medical examination. Is he aware that the reason they have refused that is that they had a previous examination and that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said in this House that, as a result of that examination, there were no marks, bruises or anything else suggesting injury or ill-treatment upon them? Is he aware that it was because of that statement, which is denied in the medical records of the men who made the examination, that these prisoners say, "We are not going to have a further examination when the truth is withheld from the House of Commons"?

Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to the hon. Member, even though he interrupted, for making that clear. This will enable my right hon. Friend to reply to the argument which the hon. Gentleman is making when my right hon. Friend winds up the debate. There is a conflict, and the hon. Gentleman has not clearly understood what my right hon. Friend said, but my right hon. Friend will make it perfectly clear in his winding up speech. There is no doubt about this at all, but I would prefer to leave it to my right hon. Friend to do himself.
I was about to proceed to say that we have been accused of dragging our feet by a series—I think the hon. Gentleman said—of negatives, without any positive action. It seems to me that the very reverse is true. All the initiative has come from us, and nothing but intransigence from those who seek to represent the people of Cyprus. The truth is that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Cypriot people themselves are not in a position to speak freely for themselves, because they are living in terror of their lives. At the risk of detaining the Committee, I think I should repeat for the sake of the record what Her Majesty's Government have done in recent months on this problem.
I go back to last December, when we put forward draft constitutional proposals for the island, which had been conceived by Lord Radcliffe and gave a wide measure of self-government to the people. The Greek Government turned them down flat. When, following the United

Nations Resolution, Lord Ismay, then Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, offered his good offices for mediation in the dispute, Her Majesty's Government accepted at once. Again, there was no favourable response from the Greek Government.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman like to amplify that statement? He has said that there was no favourable response from the Greek Government. Is he telling the Committee that the Greek Government have categorically turned down, in terms, any intervention by N.A.T.O. in the form of conciliation?

Mr. Profumo: I was saying exactly what my words mean, and the hon. Gentleman will see that when he reads my words. No favourable response has been received from the Greek Government, and that is absolutely incontrovertible. Alas, that is the case. I do not want to make it the case; I wish it were not so, but it is the case. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in the point, but I think that if he looks at my words later he will find that they represent the facts.
Following the success of the security forces in Cyprus, Her Majesty's Government decided that it was no longer necessary to detain Archbishop Makarios, and so, with a desire to ease tension—and I think I should make this point—and also in the hope that, once he was free, he might play the part of leader which he professed to be, the Archbishop was released. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made considerable play with this point. It sounded to me as if he disagreed with what the Government did. He appeared to disagree with Her Majesty's Government because the Archbishop was expected to make a statement, and, because, when he did not, we let him out none the less.
I remember the hon. Gentleman telling the Government that it would be quite wrong to make the Archbishop make too many promises, because that might stop him coming out. Do not let us have any argument about that. He is out, and the Committee knows the reason why the Government took that decision. The tragedy is that, so far, the Archbishop has not taken a single constructive step on behalf of his weary people. Rather has


he seemed to care more for his own personal position.
The next point is that the Governor of Cyprus arranged a generous safe conduct for Colonel Grivas and his colleagues. There was no respose. The Governor of Cyprus proceeded to relax certain emergency regulations, and, in particular, those affecting offences punishable by death. This has been met only by the poisonous campaign about atrocities. All this was done in the spirit of the United Nations Resolution, although it has only led to charges by the Greeks and Archbishop Makarios that we paid no attention to it whatever.
The hon. Member suggests that we should break through the present deadlock and issue invitations to a conference, but the Government have shown by their record that they have always been ready to confer with the Cypriots and the Greeks and Turks. I take the hon. Member's proposal to be that we should invite Archbishop Makarios and the representatives of the Cypriots to discuss with us either the Radcliffe constitution or else the future of Cyprus generally. We have already said that if there were to be such a conference with representative Cypriots, Archbishop Makarios could be invited among others, and this remains Her Majesty's Government's policy today.
But what is the present position? The Greek Cypriots have the fear of E.O.K.A. assassination hanging over them because the Archbishop has not said a word to the terrorist leader—

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)rose—

Mr. Profumo: It will be awkward for other hon. Members if I do not finish a sentence before giving way to an interruption. I was about to say that the Greek Cypriots still live in a fear of assassination and that the published views of Archbishop Makarios on the Radcliffe proposals are perfectly clear.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from a recent interview in a London newspaper, and according to this, Archbishop Makarios declared that the Radcliffe proposals were unworkable and that neither they nor any amendments could ever be accepted by the Cypriots. When asked about his alternatives the Archbishop

refused to make any suggestions, and if the suggestion is that the invitation would be to discuss the future of Cyprus, the Archbishop has made it perfectly clear, in his letter to the Prime Minister and subsequently, that Turkish Cypriots could not take part, at any rate on equal terms, and that, in effect, the discussions would have to be bilateral ones with him.

Mrs. Jeger: I only wished to ask whether it is the fact that the latest communication from Archbishop Makarios makes clear that he never expected to be the sole negotiator and that he would be glad to come as one of a group representing Cyprus.

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Lady turns up the record, she will see what I was trying to say. It is correct that the Archbishop said that he does not expect to be the only person at this discussion. But he has indicated that he would want to discuss the general problems first, and, when they were all settled, then the minority Turkish Cypriots could be brought in to discuss limited problems. It is clear that that is what he suggests doing, and I call that bilateral discussions. Her Majesty's Government have always said that all the representatives must come, representatives of all sections in Cyprus—

Mr. Callaghan: That is not true.

Mr. Profumo: —and I want to tell the Committee that I, and my right hon. Friend, too, should be delighted if reason prevailed and if there were conditions in which we could get down to sensible talks with representative Cypriots, on the details of the Radcliffe proposals. But while terrorism hangs over Cyprus, and Archbishop Makarios stonewalls and appears determined to gain Enosis by hook or by crook, I do not think that it is reasonable to say that Her Majesty's Government are dragging their feet by not calling a conference on this subject with the Cypriots. None the less, the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman tried to indicate to the Committee is, in fact, happening. That is to say. Her Majesty's Government have not been content to allow matters to rest, although the last hopeful initiative to be taken in this matter was that taken three months ago. The Government are again looking into the possibilities of taking some further initiative.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about the strategic position of Cyprus, and perhaps I may answer it now. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has completed his examination of the strategic position as affecting Cyprus, we shall certainly be prepared to make a statement. But I cannot go further today than to assure the Committee that any changes in our assessment of the military facilities we need in Cyprus will be taken fully into account during the current talks.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me to give a specific assurance that partition should be ruled out altogether of any of the possible solutions to the Cyprus problem. I think he said that it was not within the realm of practical politics. The Committee will remember that what my right hon. Friend said in December was that, if and when self-determination is exercised by Cyprus, there must be the possibility of self-determination for each of the two major communities, and thus the option of partition cannot be ruled out. I readily agree that partition of this relatively small island would not be an ideal solution, but, nevertheless, it is a possible consequence for which provision must be made among any studies which we make about the future of Cyprus.
I am sure that the Committee will join me in hoping that Sir John Harding will have a complete and speedy recovery. I understand that he hopes to be out of hospital by the end of this week. After he has had a few days' rest the discussions can proceed. In all these discussions, the Governor and Her Majesty's Government will certainly do all they can to achieve a solution acceptable to all concerned. There are a good many solutions which, as in the past, have been canvassed and mooted. Some of them, in my opinion, do not stand up to scrutiny, but others of them may perhaps contain the germ of what may be a workable solution. It would be quite unsuitable to make any further comment now, except to say that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Governor will fail to take into account any proposal which has been, or may be, made, and at a suitable stage my right hon. Friend will make a fresh statement.
By their actions Her Majesty's Government have shown their desire for our

Colonial Territories to advance towards self-government. Not only Ghana, but Malaya, Singapore, West Indies, Nigeria and other territories, all in various stages of advance, bear witness to this. But in formulating the future of any of our dependencies, there are certain inescapable responsibilities which rest on the shoulders of any Government of the day. These include being satisfied that the plans will allow of internal peace and tranquillity and that they will not be in obvious conflict with the facts of history and geography. We shall not, of course, depart from these principles in our consideration of the future of Cyprus.
If some hon. Members are disposed to think that our progress in solving the Cyprus problem is slow, I beg them to remember that we are not just dealing with constitutional progress along the normal colonial pattern. We have here to solve some highly intractable international problems in which two of our allies have positions which it is very difficult to harmonise. Meanwhile, there are, I think, two possible actions which could do much to help to bring the Cyprus problem more swiftly to a happy end.
The first of them is that if Colonel Grivas and his colleagues were to accept the safe-conduct offer, the result would be that Cypriots could live and speak their true thoughts again without fear. Thus, I believe that we could make some real headway with consultations about a constitution. After all, the United Nations Resolution spoke of the requirement of an atmosphere of peace and freedom of expression. With the lifting of one little finger Archbishop Makarios could bring this step about. He has already had over three months to do so, and in the absence of a lead by him to Grivas, I can only presume that it suits his personal aims to have a smouldering E.O.K.A. organisation gagging and terrorising his unfortunate countrymen.
At the end of last week, when we were discussing the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made a dramatic appeal to the leaders of Communist China to end the terrorism in Malaya. He was quite right when he said that by lifting a little finger the Chinese leaders could stop all that. Equally, if he wished, Archbishop Makarios could produce the same effect


in this difficult situation. We must hope that this can be brought about, because I am sure that the Committee would agree that it would create a great effect.
The other action concerns hon. Members opposite. I believe that it is widely thought, especially in Greece, that, were the Labour Party in office, it would grant immediate self-determination to Cyprus. Personally, I do not believe this represents the official Labour Party policy—

Mr. Callaghan: There is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should.

Mr. Profumo: There is every reason why I should. If hon. Gentlemen read their newspapers and listen carefully to what people say—

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghanrose—

Mr. Profumo: I am sorry, but I have not finished.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Godfrey Nicholson): Order. The Committee must realise that two hon. Gentlemen cannot be on their feet at the same time. If the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor does not give way, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) must not attempt to intervene

Mr. Callaghan: There is no reason at all why the Under-Secretary should give any credence to these rumours, or should recount to us what he has read in the Press, because he must be as certain as I am that our line is to be taken from what has been said in the House. Our position has been made clear time and time again, but I will repeat it once more for the hon. Member's benefit, although there should be no reason to repeat it unless he wants to make mischief with the Turks or anyone else.
We believe that there should be a period of self-government during which political parties should be allowed to grow up in order that there may be the growth of political freedom and the expression of opinion in Cyprus, with full understanding that at the end of that period of self-government the Cypriots should have the right to determine their own future. The length of the period of self-government must clearly depend upon a number of factors, but it would be a con-

siderable period. I have said that, and others have said it, on more than one occasion, and the hon. Member has no right to cast any doubts on it now.

Mr. Profumo: I am very grateful to the hon. Member, because he has made the whole point which I was trying to develop. He stopped me in the middle of a sentence, but I should be wasting the time of the Committee if I did not say that I believe—and my hon. Friends will bear witness to this—that there are large numbers of people, particularly in 'Greece, who hold the view that if a Labour Government were in office they would give immediate self-determination to Cyprus.

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member must feel very nervous about this. I am not attacking him. I wish he had waited until I had finished.
What I am saying is that as long as Archbishop Makarios or any others who are parties to this problem believe that there is a chance of a Government being formed in the United Kingdom which might take that action I have mentioned, then our negotiations are bound to be bedevilled by a "let us wait and see" attitude. There can be no question about that. I am, therefore, grateful to the hon. Member for what he said, and if the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F, Soskice) is to speak on behalf of the Labour Party I should like him to make it perfectly clear beyond any shadow of doubt that a Labour Government would not rush into this if they were in office.

Sir Frank Soskice: Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)rose—

Mr. Profumo: I am just finishing my speech.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared, on behalf of the Labour Party, at least to reinforce what his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said, which has been helpful, that it is not the policy of the Labour Party—

Sir F. Soskice: Our policy is quite clear.

Mr. Profumo: It is not clear enough, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reinforce what his hon.


Friend has said, I believe that he would make a contribution towards a solution of this problem which we all so much desire to solve, and I believe that this debate would then have had a very valuable result.

Sir F. Soskice: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I deal with that point? If he asks me to make that assertion, then I gladly make it straight away. I repeat the terms which were used by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). There cannot be the least doubt about it, there never has been the least doubt about it, and what the hon. Member is trying to do is to manufacture a doubt.

5.15 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: So far, this has been a most disappointing debate. The Government have said nothing at all which will reassure opinion either in this country or in Cyprus. It seems a long time ago since a very simple question was put to the Government: do they want Cyprus as a base or do they want a base in Cyprus? Even that elementary point has not been cleared up.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made it clear that if there were a Labour Government there would be a radical difference in our political and other relations with the people of Cyprus, because they would know that we were profoundly anxious to bring about a settlement which would safeguard the interests of minorities in Cyprus and which would permit free elections in Cyprus. They could then look forward, with those safeguards, to their independence.
I do not wish to raise those wider issues today, for I wish to give my time to certain specific matters on which absolutely clear and unambiguous speaking on both sides of the Committee could help. I refer, first, to the question whether prisoners who are in the charge of British guards are or have been tortured. I am not speaking about the rough and ready exchanges of open warfare. We make every allowance for the fact that in battle and where there is an atmosphere of terror on both sides dreadful things can happen.
But it is quite a different matter if, at some point in the fighting, a man or a

woman becomes a prisoner. There are international laws and standards of behaviour which should bind us in honour when dealing with the treatment of prisoners. This issue of how prisoners are treated is being watched very carefully by our own people, by those on all sides in Cyprus, and by the prisoners themselves and their friends and relatives. We shall be doing a very great disservice if we do not try to get certain points clear this afternoon.
I want to begin by asking the Colonial Secretary a question. On 4th July, the Home Secretary, in answer to a Question which I put to him, said:
…I have to give the medical opinion as given me by medical persons, and whilst the hon. Members may have many talents, I am not aware that they are of the medical profession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1957; vol. 572, c. 1298.]
The right hon. Gentleman was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and myself. It was a clear statement from the Home Secretary that he had received a medical report from Wormwood Scrubs stating that the prisoners from Cyprus, to use the words of the Colonial Secretary on 27th June, had
no marks, bruises, or anything else suggesting injury or ill-treatment …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1957; vol. 572, c. 387.]
I should like to know what medical authority informed the Home Secretary or the Colonial Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman can answer that now it would help me a great deal. Was it the medical officer from Wormwood Scrubs or was it another doctor who authorised a member of the Government Front Bench to say that there were no bruises or scars on those prisoners which could have been caused by improper treatment?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I will answer the hon. Lady now, although I will deal in any detail required, both with the general charges and with specific allegations, when I wind up the debate.
Clearly, in this matter both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I take full responsibility for what we say in Parliament or elsewhere, but, naturally, in matters of this kind we are advised by those whose job it is, amongst other things, to examine prisoners on their entry into Wormwood Scrubs. I have myself seen the principal medical officer and I have


written statements from the two medical officers who examined all these prisoners in the two batches in August last year and February of this year. I propose to read their letters at the close of the debate if it seems desirable to do so and the Committee wishes.

Miss Lee: We have heard that statement from the Colonial Secretary This morning, in the presence of the Governor of Wormwood Scrubs, the Assistant-Governor, the chief medical officer of health, one of the doctors and two of my colleagues in the House, I asked a question of the medical officer and the doctor present.
I asked, were there, as alleged, marks, scars and bruises on those men when they came into the prison? I asked this question of the doctor about one prisoner in particular, whose back was very noticeably scarred. The doctor said that he had examined this prisoner when he came in, but did not remember seeing any scars. Later, the chief medical officer of health joined the conference—he was not present when the doctor made that remark. He turned up the record of this prisoner, and read out that he had marks and scars—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I may say so without disrespect, this is one of the difficulties we had when rather similar charges were made over Kenya. We ranged from the general to the particular, and back again to the general. If the hon. Lady would say which precise prisoner she is speaking of, it would enable me to identify the story, or the alleged story.

Miss Lee: The name of the prisoner was Renos Kyriakides. I apologise for my pronunciation, but I will give the Minister the exact spelling later.
This prisoner was examined by the doctor on arrival. I should like to know whether, when a doctor is brought forward to give evidence in the presence of three hon. Members of this House who are trying simply to find out the truth, he would have access to the record he had originally made of the prisoner before attending this morning's conference. I would think it very strange if he did not have access to the document.
Nevertheless, he came along, and the first statement we got from him was that he could not remember seeing any scars or bruises on this prisoner. Half an hour later the chief medical officer of health

joined the conference, and read out that on examination of this prisoner there were marks or scars on him. Therefore, let us be clear of one thing. There are marks and scars on this prisoner as alleged. I am not talking about the cause of them—and of marks on other prisoners. Some on the face, some on their back or chest, or on their feet—but one thing is clear. There are marks and scars on those men.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps it will help if, here and now, I say that Renos Kyriakides was brought into Wormwood Scrubs on 28th August, 1956. I must say that it seems quite astonishing that until a campaign was organised by Archbishop Makarios no notice has been drawn to this case. The note taken when he came into Wormwood Scrubs was that he had a healed gunshot wound on the right shoulder—and, after all, we are dealing with people who had been in arms in the forests and elsewhere in Cyprus—but that there was no muscle wastage. That was written down at the time by the prison doctor. I would repeat that Renos Kyriakides was one of those who came in first, in August of last year.
Incidentally, the chief medical officer told me that until this campaign started there was the utmost co-operation from all the prisoners, and the best possible relations between prisoners and the prison staff and doctors, and there was no suggestion but that they were perfectly ready to talk frankly and freely with the doctors, in whom they had entire confidence. It is only now, when a campaign is being waged by Archbishop Makarios to try by this sort of method to do what he has failed to do by arms in Cyprus, that the prisoners are taking this line.

Miss Lee: I do not in the least object to that interruption by the Colonial Secretary but, with all due respect, I do not think that he has clarified the points that I was seeking to make. The first point that I have made is that there are scars on those men, and I have mentioned those who were present at this morning's conference.
Secondly, I asked the chief medical officer, and the doctor present, what, in their view, was the cause of those scars. They agreed that they could have been caused in many different ways. I asked them if they could entirely rule out that they were caused by ill-treatment—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Has the hon. Lady now left the case of Renos Kyriakides—

Miss Lee: No.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —Will she, in fairness to the prison doctors concerned, and to our troops and others in Cyprus, identify everybody separately when making specific charges? Otherwise, it is quite impossible for me to do my duty by people who are being challenged in this way.

Miss Lee: I do not think that the Minister had any reason to think that I had left the case of Renos Kyriakides. I am still dealing with him, because I think that it is very much better to deal with a specific case and get the facts of it clear, rather than to generalise and leave everything in a blur.
Perhaps I may now proceed. The chief medical officer of health and the doctor made it quite clear, in the presence of the Governor, the Assistant-Governor and others this morning, that those scars could have been caused by ill-treatment. They did not say that the scars were caused in that way, but they took a point of view entirely different from that expressed by the Home Secretary, when he bludgeoned the Opposition with the rather tart remark that we were not doctors, that he was being guided by medical opinion, and that the advice of doctors was that those scars could not have been caused by ill-treatment. That is why I ask who those medical authorities were, because they most certainly were not the chief medical officer of Wormwood Scrubs or the doctor who was present this morning.
Perhaps I may say, incidentally, that I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for the courtesy and the speed with which he has answered the request of the prisoners that other hon. Members and myself should go to see them. We are also grateful to the Governor for all his courtesy, and I am satisfied that the prisoners have no reason at all to be suspicious of the chief medical officer of Wormwood Scrubs. What has caused the mischief is not anything that the doctors have said or done. The mischief has been caused by the Colonial Secretary. Though there was an excellent relationship between the prisoners and the Governor—and that excellent relationship remains—there was also an

excellent relationship between the prisoners and the doctors—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Perhaps, after all, this is the best way of dealing with the matter. I had not made a statement when the hon. Lady first began to make these charges. How, then, could the attitude of the prisoners at Wormwood Scrubs have been caused by something I had said? I have not made a statement about it, because these charges were made for the first time by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway).

Miss Lee: Let me read again the sentence in the statement of 27th June which has caused so much trouble at Wormwood Scrubs. It reads:
No marks, bruises, or anything else suggesting injury or ill-treatment were noticed on any of these men…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1957; Vol. 572, c. 387.]
It was after that statement was made that the prisoners said, "We have these scars and bruises, but we read that in the British House of Commons the Colonial Secretary says that we do not have them." They assumed, therefore, that false evidence had been given by their doctors, and I am very glad that those doctors have been completely exonerated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough and myself are also exonerated, because we are all now agreed that those prisoners have scars, and that those scars could have been caused by ill-treatment. As that can no longer be denied, why are the Government resisting an independent inquiry?
The Under-Secretary took great pleasure in reciting a case in which a lady was supposed to have had her teeth knocked out, and now he says that he can prove that this evidence was false. If he can prove false evidence in one case, would it not be wonderful to widen the scope of inquiry and would we not all be delighted if false evidence could be proved in all those cases? No one on this side of the Committee has done anything more than say that there are prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs who are scarred and who allege that those scars came from having been beaten up. They have given the names of witnesses, and we want an inquiry to be made. Therefore, I ask that we should stop this nonsense of slandering the whole of our


forces out in Cyprus because the Government are trying to cover up for a few thugs in their midst.
Another thing that disturbs me when I go into this evidence is that I find that quite a few of the security men are not British. Quite a number of them are Turks. Some of the worst allegations of abuse relate to members of the security force who are Turks and not British at all. I have read statements to the effect that some of them were formerly German army men. I should like these matters looked into, because I start with the assumption, which we all share, that the ordinary British fellow, when he is serving abroad, is almost a model soldier. There is no such thing as a model soldier, but I think that the whole world will agree that the British are not brutes. They are not given to beating up.
If the Government thought that the average British soldier, be he an officer, or in the ranks, a Regular or a member of the security police, was a thug and a sadist, I could understand why the Government would be afraid of an inquiry, but if the Government agree with us on this side of the Committee that it is an exceptional psychology that does this kind of thing, why cannot we have an inquiry? This is very serious. This is a case of helpless prisoners in our custody being ill-treated. If the Committee will bear with me, I want hon. Members to know just how serious these statements are, by reading out part of a full statement that has been given by Nicolas Loizou.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is the case of Renos Kyriakides the only case which the hon. Lady wants to pursue after personal investigation of the alleged injuries? It would help to get at the facts if the hon. Lady would say what cases she investigated herself, instead of bringing out some special pleading which, after all, we have not heard before, about cases which may not be identifiable unless she gives me details of what she has seen herself.

Miss Lee: The Colonial Secretary will be very glad to know that I am now going on to make some comments about a case that I personally investigated. The prisoner is in Wormwood Scrubs, and considerable particulars about this

prisoner, Nicolas Loizou, have already been given to the Colonial Secretary. This is the second case that I am now raising of men who are in Wormwood Scrubs. They are identifiable. The full statement that has been made by this prisoner reads:
I was arrested during the military operation of 4th October, 1956. Immediately after my arrest soldiers took off my shoes, tied my hands with thin rope, took from me my money which only amounted to 5s., my gold watch valued at about £2 and my cigarettes. Then they isolated me from my other comrades and I was handed over to two agents, one Turk and one Greek, the latter named Theophanis Louca, who started kicking me fiercely in front of the soldiers.
Afterwards, the soldiers took me away barefooted for about one and a half miles to a place where they lifted me into a military vehicle and transported me to the military camp of Ambrosia. In this camp the soldiers tied my eyes tightly and they also tied my hands with a special thin rope under my legs and they pulled me by the hair on the rough and rocky ground. At the same time, they hit me with butts and kicked me. They dragged me before an Englishman with civilian clothes. Then they unfolded the bandage off my eyes and I found myself inside a room in the centre of which there was a desk.
The Englishman with civilian clothes asked me my name and age and I told him. They did not ask me any other questions. At that moment, soldiers headed by an R.M.P. sergeant of the Parachute Regiment entered the room. By order of the man with the civilian clothes they stretched me on the desk and started to hit me with a rubber club, the length of which was half a metre, on the back and breast. Afterwards, they stretched me on the ground…"—

Mr. W. R. Williams: It seems to me that what my hon. Friend is now reading is causing great amusement to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). Some of us who are taking an interest in this are wondering what is funny about it.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Since I have been addressed by the hon. Gentleman, may I say that I am not prepared to believe that any British soldier has behaved in this manner?

Mr. Williams: What is there funny about it?

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot allow cross-talk in the Committee.

Mess Lee: I apologise for reading such a long quotation, but as we ought to be specific, and as this is a statement which has been made by a prisoner in Wormwood Scrubs, who is identifiable, it is in


the interests of British justice that I should continue to read this, because if this behaviour, which is so un-British, has occurred, the Colonial Secretary should want to prove that it is not true, instead of merely denying it. Denial is not proof. All we want on this side of the Committee is to uphold our honour by either proving that it is untrue or, if it is true, by showing to the world that if this thing does happen inside a British prison camp we know how to deal with it in the British House of Commons.
The prisoner went on to say:
At one moment they threw me violently on the desk with the result of injuring my left foot near the toe. This incident was repeated two more times at intervals during the first day of my arrest. About 9 p.m. on the same day they took me before two English interrogators who threatened to execute me and I told them to kill me so that I could free myself from the torture. They answered that they would kill me but not immediately. They would make me die slowly by different methods.
On the next day the same and worse tortures were inflicted. They started again to beat me and pull me by the hair, as a result of which I was injured in various parts of my body. I had been so tightly tied with rope that both my hands were injured and the one on my legs was caused the previous day when they threw me on the desk. During the evening a military doctor passed and gave me a cursory glance. I asked him to bandage my wound and he answered that it would come all right in time.
When the doctor left soldiers took me again and they started to hit me again with a special apparatus on the knees and the face. At the same time, I felt inflammation on parts of my body. Such an apparatus was turned on the uncovered part of my face and caused me burns. The scar was clearly visible for three months. The other scars caused by the special apparatus are still existent on the left leg. Simultaneously, they knocked my head on the wall and my head was bleeding from many wounds. After this I was given water to drink. I was feeling horrible pains from my wounds and they continued to beat me at intervals.
The evening of the third day of my arrest they set free my hands for the first time. I was two more days in this camp On the sixth day of my arrest they took me before the police superintendent, who through an interpreter, was trying to bribe me with a sum of £5,000 to £10,000 to make false and incriminating statements.
I think that the money amount is wrong; he means in their currency. He went on to say:
When I refused his bribe he answered that my tortures would continue. On the eighth day of my arrest…"—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the hon. Lady this question, because it is important to get this right? She said that she was dealing with cases in which she had herself investigated wounds or scars, or whatever it may be. She has read out a long document all of which is very derogatory, to put it mildly, of the conduct of British troops, although she goes out of her way to say that she does not intend to censure British troops. We have heard nothing about wounds which she may herself have seen. The prison record of this man, who was examined when he came in, shows that no scars or bruises were noted. This paper, which was given to me, was signed by the principal medical officer, who passed it to the Governor, when he asked for a report quite recently. No scars or bruises were noted at the time. I understand today that there was some sort of slight scar on the wrist of this man, Nicolas Loizou, which, he said, was due to the fact that he had been hung up by a rope or something of that sort.
This is the very first time that this story has been told, this statement of what he said happened to him in Cyprus. He has been in Wormwood Scrubs since last February. The relations between the doctors were nothing but friendly. No signs of scars or bruises were noted, but I understand that today, when certain hon. Members went to see him, there was something which could conceivably have been caused by a rope some time ago.
I would remind the Committee that we are not dealing with kid-glove types but are dealing with people who lead very rough lives, and that there was a tremendous amount of fighting between the prisoners themselves in Cyprus before they arrived here, and I do not accept that these wounds were caused by actions by our own troops.

Miss Lee: I am not asking the Secretary of State to accept this statement. I am not asking him to reject it; I am asking him to inquire into the facts. The prisoner whom we examined today has those marks on his wrist, and they could have been caused in the way he suggested. We are not as dogmatic as the Secretary of State, and ask only for an inquiry. If the Secretary of State is so sure of his own ground, why will he not have an investigation into the facts? This side


of the Committee and the whole world are puzzled why, if he is so sure, he will not have an investigation.
The right hon. Gentleman will notice I have given several names. This prisoner has given the name of Mr. White and other names which I have read out.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Everybody understands that there are reasonable courtesies in the House, and that hon. Members usually give way when asked to do so, but does there not come a time when the usage is abused, and would it not be more convenient if my hon. Friend were allowed without further interruption to complete her speech? As for the Secretary of State, he will have ample opportunity to reply to the debate.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Temporary Chairman: Let me take one point at a time. I would remind the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that we are in Committee, and that different rules of order apply when we are in Committee. If the hon. Lady gives way to the right hon. Gentleman or to anybody else, that is her business, and it is not the business of the Chair to curtail such intervention.

Miss Lee: I want to leave out several further most horrifying points in this statement, but must read the last paragraph—

Mr. Frederick Gough: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She may have noticed that I am wearing the tie of the only regiment which has been mentioned in this statement which she has read out, the Paratroop Regiment, to which I am very proud to belong. That statement which the hon. Lady has read out mentions a sergeant of the Paratroop Regiment and the treatment of prisoners. I wonder if the hon. Lady, when she took this statement, took any steps to find out whether any troops of the Paratroop Regiment were there, because, quite frankly, I cannot believe that anyone of the Paratroop Regiment would behave like that.

Miss Lee: I am in the process of doing what the hon. Gentleman wants done. I

am now in the process of taking steps to find out how far these statements are true or untrue. I do not know of any more serious way of finding out than coming to the Government, coming to the Colonial Secretary, putting these facts before him, giving as many names of witnesses as I have, and asking him to go into the matter, and find out the rest of the facts, and report back to the Committee.
I come to the last paragraph, which is very important. It states:
On 19 10 '56 (fifteen days after my arrest), I was taken to Nicosia Central Prison. On 22 10 '56, they permitted our lawyer to see us for the first time. To the judge, Mr. Ellison"—
I presume that he could be identified—
who came to the prison to renew the order for my remand, I complain about the tortures inflicted upon me and asked to give him a written statement about this. The judge refused, alleging that it was not his duty. Then I asked him to see my wound. He refused again. Together with Mr. Ellison were present Police Superintendent White, the Attorney-General, Mr. Gosling, a Greek police inspector and an interpreter. They answered that later they will ask the police to see us and take our complaints in writing. On 22 10 '56, Superintendent White visited us with a sergeant of the Special Branch, as it seems to me. They read to us our charge and after our insistence they wrote about four to five lines about what we suffered. This statement was read before the court during our trial. On 22 12 '56 I was sentenced for life. Forty-six clays later I was transferred to Wormwood Scrubbs prison.
I have read the last paragraph because it is very specific. It gives names, it gives addresses, it gives places. It also helps to answer the question asked by the Under-Secretary of State, why had those men not complained before? They had complained. I will leave the matter at that. I would rather have two cases thoroughly investigated than go on with many more. The question has been asked, why did those men not immediately when they arrived in this country make indignant protests? These men in Cyprus did make their protests. Some of them got as far as court. Some of them got a little of their evidence considered.
These men thought when they were in Cyprus that when they were being sent to an English jail they were being sent to a place where they would be worse treated, not better treated. It is one of


the sweetening factors in this whole miserable business that those prisoners who have been sent to this country speak so highly of the treatment they are now receiving in Wormwood Scrubs.
I therefore beg the Government not to allow this kind of statement to go around the world unanswered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is going round the world. It is there now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If you have not heard it, if there is a stain on your reputation and you want—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Lady must remember that she is addressing the Chair.

Miss Lee: I accept your correction, Mr. Nicholson.
If there is a stain on the reputation of an hon. Member or of an institution in this country we should not try to run away from it. We should be the first to ask for an inquiry. So I hope the Government will stop this miserable business of dodging. It was the Colonial Secretary's statement, which, at the very best, was ambiguous, which began this deep suspicion between the doctors and the prisoners. I hope that not only the prisoners but the people of Cyprus and the friends and relatives of those prisoners will know that they are in a prison in this country where they can trust their doctors and their Governor. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies to the debate he will make no more slick debating points and no more ambiguous statements but will tell us whether he does or whether he does not intend to hold a full, free and serious inquiry into these charges.

5.49 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) because I had the good fortune to accompany her and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) this morning down to Wormwood Scrubs to see some of the Cypriot detainees who had made various allegations and complaints about ill treatment when they were arrested by the security forces in Cyprus.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough had been there before. They were, therefore, better

acquainted than I was with the stories and with the individuals concerned. I should like to endorse straight away what the hon. Lady said about the courtesy shown to us and the facilities given to us by the Governor of Wormwood Scrubs and by the medical officers. In particular, I should like to endorse what she said about the care with which the Cypriot detainees are examined by the medical officer upon their entry into the prison. To give the impression that when the Cypriots are brought in they are subjected only to a cursory medical examination in a rather hasty and off-hand way would be totally unfair to the doctor concerned and completely untrue.
All sorts of allegations, of course, have been bandied about during the last months or so by Archbishop Makarios and others about the rough handling of Cypriot terrorists when they were arrested in Cyprus. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I am a little surprised that quite so much credence should be given to these allegations in some quarters. I wonder sometimes whether we in the Committee, or indeed the public outside, can appreciate the background and the circumstances which prevail in Cyprus, in which the security forces have been operating and in which they have been endeavouring to seek out and arrest and exterminate the E.O.K.A. terrorist forces. I need a great deal of convincing that the British troops and others engaged with them have not behaved with their usual almost unbelievable restraint in face of provocation.
As my right hon. Friend has said, it is not a kind of kid-glove task to go into the mountains or into a remote village as part of an operation to arrest three or four terrorists who think nothing whatever of shooting a soldier whilst he is out shopping in the streets with his wife or of going into a hospital and shooting a patient. The terrorist when caught does not come very quietly. He does not walk up to a soldier or a security officer, as one would walk up to a policeman with a driving licence or an insurance certificate when one has parked the car in the wrong place, and say, "I am sorry." All sorts of people are liable to get bruises and scratches and worse. When fighting in the mountains of Cyprus I should be surprised if everyone did not get bruises and scratches on their bodies.
When I went with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough to Wormwood Scrubs this morning to look at some of the scars and other abrasions which the detainees alleged they got at the hands of the security forces, I was very surprised indeed that they had not complained earlier. If I had been arrested by the security forces in Cyprus over a year ago and had arrived in England with a dislocated shoulder or a cut lip I should have said to the medical officer, "Look what the brutal, licentious soldiers have done in Cyprus. It is up to you to do something about it." But months went by, as far as I can discover, before any complaint of that kind was made at all.
I am not, of course, a medical practitioner and neither is the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock, nor the hon. Member for Eton and Slough. When a layman looks at bruises or scars or scratches or a cut lip or at a toe-nail that has grown again, it is very difficult for him to say how the wound, if that is the right expression, was caused. That brings me to the first point in the hon. Lady's allegations. The hon. Lady took my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to task for saying that
No marks, bruises, or anything else suggesting injury or ill-treatment were noticed on any of these men, and no complaints of such ill-treatment were made at the time of their entry into Wormwood Scrubs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1957; Vol. 572, c. 387.]
I do not think that one can possibly blame the prison doctor who examined them and made that report for saying that there was absolutely nothing to suggest that any of the marks on any of these men, including the marks we saw on them today, were due to ill-treatment at the hands of the security forces. They could have been caused by a hundred and one things. If one went into the street in any city or even a village in this country and took fifty men at random and had them examined by a doctor I should be very surprised if the doctor did not see as many bruises, abrasions or scratches on their bodies as can be seen today on the bodies of these detainees.

Miss Lee: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that we asked the chief medical officer and the doctors present if these scars and bruises could have been caused by improper treatment

and they said that they could have been caused by that or any other means. They could not rule it out. [Laughter.] Surely, hon. Members opposite are sufficiently concerned about this. No one on this side of the Committee has said that they were caused by ill-treatment, but it must not be said that any medical report rules out the possibility that they could have been caused by ill-treatment.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not think that the hon. Lady will disagree with me. I am not trying to get into a controversy. The point I made was that if a detainee arrives in Wormwood Scrubs and goes before the prison doctor and makes absolutely no complaint about any ill-treatment, and he has bruises on his back or a toe-nail off or a cut on his lip, there is no reason why the doctor should go out of his way to say that a particular bruise might have been caused at the hands of the security forces. He might just as well say that it was far more likely to have been caused by falling downstairs or by a hundred and one other things.
I have not had time to read the whole of the memorandum produced by the detainees, to which the hon. Lady referred, but I notice that it contains a request to my right hon. Friend in the course of which the detainees say:
…we did not accept examination by the doctor…and asked for an examination by a doctor of an independent committee of inquiry…
All I can say is that if the doctor of such an independent committee of inquiry were to make a hindcast about the causes of the bruises and other injuries that we saw today he would be a man of quite remarkable capacity if he could say how an injury was caused, perhaps many years ago, when it is absolutely impossible to discover whether it was caused by a rifle butt or by falling downstairs or by falling out of a truck.

Miss Lee: I think the hon. Member will find that the resistance of the prisoners to being medically examined again by the prison doctors arose from the belief that what was said by the Secretary of State could be interpreted to mean that the doctors thought that there were no scars or bruises. We on this side of the Committee are doing our best to restore their faith in the prison doctors.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Yes, but surely the hon. Lady would agree that one would


have assumed it reasonable that if one were a Cypriot detainee, burning with indignation at the treatment received in Cyprus, one would not wait until the wounds alleged to have been received were almost invisible before making a complaint. One would want the prison doctor and everybody else to examine one's back or front or toe-nails as soon as possible after the alleged injury, instead of waiting for several months. However, I do not want to pursue that argument.
Now I will pass from the particular, so to speak, to two of the more general points made in the course of this debate. I was interested to learn from the lips of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) of the specific terms of the Labour policy for Cyprus. Frankly, there have been so many statements made by the party opposite, in varying degrees of responsibility or irresponsibility, that one could almost take one's pick. Now, however, we have had the statement from the Front Bench, which perhaps will be reaffirmed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) when he closes the debate for the Opposition, that it is a period of self-government followed by self-determination.
May I ask him to deal with one point to make certain that there is no further misunderstanding either in this country, or in Greece, or in Turkey? When it is said that there is to be a period of self-government in Cyprus followed by self-determination, self-determination for whom; for Greek and Turk? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say if it is to be self-determination for the Greek section of the population and not for the Turkish? Will he say that it is to be self-determination for Greek and Turk alike? If so, he is saying that the policy of the Opposition, should they come into power, is partition. That is the inevitable conclusion of self-determination within a given period.
Frankly, I do not believe that the Cyprus issue, bristling as it is with every conceivable complication, is a simple colonial issue. Even the United States does not believe that any longer. I do not believe that it is even solely a strategic issue, although of course Greece and Turkey belong to N.A.T.O. and Turkey, in addition, belongs to the Bagdad Pact. In a sense there is something far more

drastic and vital to the issues with which we have to deal in Cyprus than either the question of how fast an island colony can develop politically when there is a minority and a majority who desire different things, or of that island's position of strategic importance in the Mediterranean, 40 miles from Turkey and about 600 from Greece.
What I am frightened of as a result of all that has been happening in the last three or four years, for which the party opposite must bear some responsibility, is that embers which have been dormant for many years are now beginning to be rekindled. All the age-old conflict between Greek orthodox and Moslem can flare up, causing frightful bloodshed among both Greeks and Turks, and bad feeling between Greece and Turkey. Yet on all other issues, geographical, strategic and so on, they ought to be as closely knit as possible.
The Greeks, for their part, have not been very helpful. Fond as I am of Greece, and I have many Greek friends, they have said "No" to almost every proposal put forward by Her Majesty's Government or by anybody else. They said, "No" to the Radcliffe proposals, or as good as "No". They have said that they do not want partition. I think they fear that partition might lead to war with Turkey. "They gave a dusty answer to the suggestion that N.A.T.O. should try to achieve some compromise. In fact they have said "No" to everything except the one thing to which the Turks will not agree at any price, that is, Enosis. In other words, the Greeks want 100 per cent. and in the world we live in we just do not get 100 per cent.
I am frightened that if the Government were to make a hasty or a false move now, much Greek and Turkish blood might flow. I am certain that if some of the less responsible views of the Opposition were ever brought into being, if any of their wilder policies became the policy of the Government, much Turkish and Greek blood would flow.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I do not think anyone on this side wants to put forward a policy which would result in Greek or Turkish blood flowing, but I can assure the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe)


that there are policies which have been adumbrated from the benches opposite which are far more likely to lead to such a result than anything put forward by the Opposition. I am thinking especially of the suggestion of partition, which has been universally condemned from these benches. It is one of the most dangerous possible solutions of this problem. I shall be interested to find out, if possible by the end of this debate, exactly where hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite stand on partition. We have already had two rather contradictory statements. One was from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, who said that while the Government still regard it as a possibility, it would be, nevertheless, a most unfortunate necessity. Whereas the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Walter Elliot), who, I believe, was the first person to fly this partition kite in the House of Commons, has said that the only matter we are to discuss today is how long it will be before partition is introduced.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May as Secretary of State put the mind of the hon. Gentleman completely at rest by saying that our view is that it would be unfortunate if the island were divided but that if there were to be self-determination it would have to be on the basis of self-determination for the Greeks and for the Turks, and that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Robinson: Possibly the right hon. Gentleman would go a little further and tell us what advice he has had from the Governor on partition? I understand that the Governor has had an inquiry made, that a report has been produced, that it is in the Colonial Office now, and that the report comes down heavily against partition as a solution of the problems of that island. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to tell us now that this is the case—or perhaps he would like to tell us in his winding-up speech. I wish the Government would have the courage to say here and now that partition is not an acceptable solution. I wish they had the courage to tell the Committee, and also the Turkish Government.
The speech of the Under-Secretary was a very barren one indeed, and he said nothing that could conceivably contradict

the charges of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that the Government have no policy for Cyprus. The most the hon. Gentleman was able to indicate was that now, and for the next week or two, a number of possible solutions will be considered by the Government and Sir John Harding in London. The charge remains that for nearly four months since the Archbishop was released no initiative of any kind has come from Her Majesty's Government.
I sometimes wonder, first, why the Archbishop was ever exiled. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will tell us precisely what he thinks he achieved by the one year's exile of Archbishop Makarios. Having been exiled, I am beginning to find it difficult to understand why the Archbishop was ever released. Since his release, the Archbishop has been in Athens, and there has been no official —or, as far as I know, unofficial—approach to him on behalf of the Government for the resumption of negotiations.
The Government are operating under a dangerous and precarious truce in Cyprus. Admittedly, the E.O.K.A. forces have been inactive since the Archbishop was released, but the hunt for the terrorists goes on. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that E.O.K.A. is defeated and disintegrated and that that was the reason why it asked for a truce in the first place, but there was a call for a general strike in Nicosia recently and, according to my information, which conflicts somewhat with a reply given to me by the Colonial Secretary, the response to it was 100 per cent.
The recent White, Paper dealing with allegations of brutality, which was published by direction of the Governor of Cyprus, still claims that E.O.K.A. has the people of Greece in a grip of terror. One cannot have it both ways. Either E.O.K.A. is defeated and disintegrated, in which case there is no barrier whatsoever, even on the Government's own showing, to a resumption of negotiations, or it was a genuine offer of a truce for the purpose of facilitating negotiations. However, in my view the opportunity for those negotiations is dwindling. I believe there is a possibility, to put it no higher than that, that the truce might come to a sudden end. I believe that if


one or two of the Cypriots now lying under sentence of death were executed there is a distinct possibility that the whole business of violence and terrorism would start up again.
It is not enough to say that the Archbishop does not make any constructive suggestions. He wrote the Prime Minister a letter which I thought was unusually conciliatory in tone, but there was certainly nothing conciliatory about the reply which he received from the Prime Minister, for it can be described only as a smack in the mouth.
The Archbishop is living in a villa just outside Athens, and he has been left there without any official contacts since his release from the Seychelles. He has been giving a number of Press conferences which have been reported, and in some cases misreported, in great detail. I admit that some of the things the Archbishop has either said or is alleged to have said have not been entirely conciliatory. At the same time, I believe that while they allow this situation to drift on the Government are wholly in default under the United Nations Resolution which calls for a resumption of negotiations in a peaceful atmosphere. The "resumption of negotiations" can refer only to direct negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the representatives of the Cypriot people, and there has been no move of any kind in that direction in the last four months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the allegations of ill-treatment and brutality by certain members of the security forces in Cyprus, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and the hon. Member for Windsor devoted their speeches to a specific aspect of the matter. It is no good the Government merely writing off the allegations of ill-treatment as E.O.K.A. propaganda. If they have not heard the gravest concern expressed by responsible British observers in Cyprus, I can only surmise that they have been closing their ears. I have certainly heard from many responsible people that they are not at all happy about the situation in respect of the security forces. I do not think that even the Colonial Secretary would regard Mr. John Clerides, Q.C., as a spokesman for E.O.K.A., and yet he has been unremit-

ting in his attempts to obtain a general impartial inquiry into the charges. It may be that charges are entirely fabricated—that is within the realms of possibility—and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will hope profoundly that that is the case, but it is just no good the Government of Cyprus merely producing a White Paper and saying that in its view the charges cannot be substantiated.
There are some rather extraordinary things in the White Paper. Paragraph 16 states the reasons why the Government are unwilling to have an independent inquiry. It says:
…a public inquiry would play into the hands of the detractors of Government and do more harm than good; not because Government has anything to hide, but because it would tend to focus attention on these malicious allegations, which is exactly what E.O.K.A. and its supporters want.
That is roughly what the Under-Secretary said this afternoon.
However, I cannot believe that an inquiry in Cyprus could not be conducted in such a way that witnesses would be prepared to come forward and speak the truth. Indeed, if the fear of intimidation of witnesses is the main reason against having an impartial inquiry, how do we stand about the investigations which have already been made by the Government? A fortiori, the witnesses would be more frightened of talking to the Government than to an independent judicial inquiry. Are we to assume that all the investigations—as a result of which the Governor is satisfied that there is no foundation for the allegations—have been made without any consideration of the facts that could be brought forward by Cypriots? Have the investigations been anything more than a questioning of the men who have been accused or of the men who have been in contact with the prisoners alleged to have been ill-treated? It is difficult to see how they could have been more than that.
The White Paper lists seven cases over the ten months from September, 1955, to June, 1956, in which prosecutions have been brought against members of the security forces. The White Paper is not explicit on the point, but I think these are prosecutions brought by the authorities. In four cases the defendants were acquitted or bound over, and in three cases they were sentenced or fined. Rather


significantly, no case since June, 1956, is quoted, but hon. Members know that the really serious charges began to be made, at least by the more impartial observers, only about November or December of last year, and that it is within the last six months that people both inside and outside Cyprus, and hon. Members of this House have been seriously worried about the matter.
There are places in which the White Paper is astonishingly disingenuous. In paragraph 10 it says:
…one would have expected to find a large number of private prosecutions being instituted against individual police or military officers for assault or similar injuries.
However, since 26th November is has been impossible under the new emergency regulations for a private prosecution to be brought against a member of the security forces without the fiat of the Attorney-General. To make a statement like that in an official Government White Paper, expressing surprise at the absence of private prosecutions, without at the same time mentioning such a relevant fact, is palpably dishonest.
Paragraph 12 begins:
A very large number of Police officers accused of such monstrous conduct are in fact members of the United Kingdom Police Forces whose traditions of restraint and humanity have long beer the admiration of the civilised world; and it must appear unlikely that such men, with their years of training and experience, should on arrival in Cyprus apparently turn into typical members of Hitler's Gestapo….
As far as I am aware, no one has levelled any charges against any British uniformed policemen in Cyrus, or against members of the Criminal Investigation Department. The charges have been levelled almost exclusively against the Special Branch officers and special interrogators.
Indeed, there are about half a dozen names which crop up time and time again in these allegations. The names are sufficiently well known to those who are in touch with events in Cyprus to make it unnecessary for me to repeat them here. If those men are innocent of those charges, it is totally unfair to them to deny them an opportunity of clearing their names, which can be done only by an independent inquiry.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Before the hon. Member leaves the point about

private prosecutions under the Attorney-General's fiat, may I say that it is only fair when accusing the Government of dishonesty to tell the House whether, and if so how often, private prosecutions have been sought where the Attorney-General's fiat has been refused.

Mr. Robinson: The conduct of the Government in Cyprus towards Greek Cypriots over the last twelve months has not been such as to give them the sort of confidence which would encourage them to go to the Attorney-General and seek permission for a private prosecution.
I was saying that if those men are innocent they should not be denied the opportunity of clearing their names before the eyes of the world. If, on the other hand, they are guilty of ill-treating prisoners who have been in their care, then I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock that, in the interests of our reputation as a Colonial Power, they should get the punishment due to them.
Leaving aside those allegations, I want to refer to the strategic value of Cyprus. We have always argued from these benches that the value of Cyprus as a base has been exaggerated by Her Majesty's Government. We have said that its military value, quite apart from the disadvantage of having a strategic base in the middle of a hostile population, is not high. As I said in the last debate on this subject, I believe that the Chiefs of Staff reported in those terms to the Labour Government in 1947. It is now being admitted on all sides that that is the fact, that Cyprus as a base is no longer necessary to the interests of this country, and that a base on Cyprus might be of sufficient value if it were a N.A.T.O. base.
The argument for staying in Cyprus has gone. It was the only argument that ever made any sense, apart from the dissensions in the party opposite. However, the Government still show every sign of staying in Cyprus.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will the hon. Member not concede that a base in Cyprus is important at any rate for safeguarding our commerce? Does he not agree that if that base is to be a N.A.T.O. base it will necessarily be under American influence, if not control, and


that it does not always happen that our interests are the same as those of the United States in non-N.A.T.O. matters?

Mr. Robinson: I do not for one moment admit that a base in Cyprus is necessary for protecting our commerce. Many other nations have their commerce in the Eastern Mediterranean adequately protected without having a strategic base there.

Mr. Maitland: Is it not a fact that there are submarines in and around the Mediterranean, some of them now owned by Egypt? Is it not possible that those submarines might attack our commerce at some time? The fact that they have not done so in the last ten years does not mean that they will not.

Mr. Robinson: If hostile action of that nature occurred and N.A.T.O. did not take counter-action, then hon. Members opposite have been placing very much more reliance on the North Atlantic Treaty than it deserved.

Mr. Maitland: It is outside the N.A.T.O. area.

Mr. Robinson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that one very necessary action before any satisfactory solution can be reached in the Cyprus problem is a change of Governor. [An HON. MEMBER: "A change of Government?"] A change of Government would be another very healthy move towards a solution, but I regard that as a little more remote. A change of Governor has become necessary because the personality of Sir John Harding is in itself an obstacle to a solution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I am very sorry if hon. Members opposite think that that statement is disgraceful, but Sir John Harding's actions in Cyprus, his conduct of the negotiations with Archbishop Makarios, do not suggest that he is the right person to resume negotiations with representatives of the Cypriot people.
He has had an extremely distinguished military career, to which I have paid tribute before and gladly pay tribute again. I believe that he was reluctant to go to Cyprus because it was obviously a difficult job. It was always primarily a political and not a military job. If there is to be any hope for the future, it must be an entirely political job in the future, and for that reason I support my hon.

Friend in asking the Government to appoint a civilian Governor of Cyprus as soon as possible.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot: The Committee is pursuing two separate lines of investigation, one into the conduct of the administration of Cyprus; and the much more fundamental one of how the difficult situation in Cyprus is to be brought to an end. I do not wish to speak at length about the administration of Cyprus. We have heard arguments and counter-arguments. It certainly seemed to me that the statement of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) could be interpreted in a way other than the one she chose. I will go no further than that.
We have all had experience of these difficult situations. I remember when I was a young Member the terrible situation with the Black and Tans in Ireland. I remember as a senior Member having the honour of being sent to Kenya as head of a delegation which considered amongst other things the conditions of imprisonment of the Kikuyu Mau Mau offenders, since those conditions had been in question. When we were investigating those matters, we were content, and on our return the House of Commons was content, to take the evidence adduced in British courts and by local British inquiries. There was no demand then for some super-inquiry over and outside the administration of the Governor himself, and certainly not outside the régime of Parliament. I will go only as far as that.
In these difficult situations accusations and counter-accusations—and, indeed, examples of very rough treatment— occur on both sides. Anyone who reads an ordinary American detective novel will come upon many allegations against the police forces there which are quite as severe as those brought against the forces in Cyprus. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that these accusations were being brought only against special investigators and special officers. I listened to the statement read out by the hon. Member for Cannock, as made by one of the prisoners at Wormwood Scrubs, which went into detailed accusations not against a special investigator or inquiry agent but against a member of the Parachute Regiment. That is what we have heard with our own ears here.

Mr. Robinson: The point is that no allegation was made about British uniformed police. I said that the allegations were mostly against Special Branch investigators.

Mr. Elliot: A British uniform is involved, whether worn by one of Her Majesty's troops or by a policeman. In fact, the accusation is perhaps even graver if it is made against uniformed troops—if it alleges that they have tortured somebody who has surrendered—than if it is made against members of a police force. It is now conceded by the hon. Member that this was an allegation of brutality made in specific terms against Europeans who had only recently been transferred into the island. I think that no greater accusasations could be launched.
All this, however, arises out of the situation in which we find ourselves, and it is to that fact that we should pay attention today. There is no doubt that these grave matters of administration should be ventilated in the Committee, but the Committee should not turn its main attention to this when there is this other general problem with which we are faced and which distresses us all, and to which we are all anxious to find the best solution.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that the Government should discuss the future of the island with the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, which caused my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) to ask him what he meant by discussing the future of the island with the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Are the Opposition willing to discuss the future of the island with both? That is a question to which neither the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East nor the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) made an adequate reply. The hon. Member said, "We are willing to discuss the affairs of the island on the basis, first, of a period of self-government and ultimately the concession of self-determination."He went on to say—at which point I ventured to interrupt him, as I did the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North—"But we rule out the suggestion of partition altogether."
That means that no question of sovereignty can ever be offered to one

section of the island. That is the position which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party take up. I do not call that discussing the future of the island with the Turkish and Greek Cypriots, nor can anybody else. The Opposition will discuss it with the Greek Cypriots on the understanding that after a certain time they are to have 100 per cent. of their demand for self-determination. It would be nothing else than that—offering them an unrestricted right to the full 100 per cent. Enosis with Greece for the whole of the representation of the island to be conducted in Athens and not Cyprus, with the minority having no say in the matter and being unable to exercise any right of sovereignty whatever.
That is not negotiating terms. How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman contend that he is willing to discuss the future of the island with the Greek and Turkish Cypriots? That is why I am uneasy about the debate today being conducted on the lines of this demand for immediate action, which I understand the Opposition are putting forward. Immediate action means that we are discussing the date of partition of the island, and nothing else. Negotiation with Makarios means the setting up of the Makarios line. It can mean nothing else. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman contend that it means? He will say to Makarios, "Come and negotiate. You shall have the last word in everything. You shall have first a period of self-government"—in which some pretty rough things might well be done because, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North has just said, the E.O.K.A. organisation is still there, under the surface.
When the hon. Member suggested that there would be no difficulty in getting testimony freely from anybody in the island upon these atrocity stories he subsequently knocked the bottom out of his own case by saying, only a little while ago, that a general strike had been called by E.O.K.A. which was immediately 100 per cent. effective. Does the hon. Member think that an organisation which can demand and get assent to a 100 per cent. strike is an organisation which, in any country—even this country—would enable a free and unfettered testimony to be given upon such matters as these? I do not think that he can claim that for a


moment. Therefore, after a period in which self-determination under a majority rule continues over the whole island, the island, upon a majority vote, is to have an unquestioned right to join itself to the mainland of Greece.
That is not a realistic proposal to bring before the House of Commons at this stage. It does not correspond with the facts. The setting up of the Makarios line in the island would be something that I should deplore from the bottom of my heart; but it is the alternative which has arisen out of the proposals which the Opposition are now making. If we enter forthwith upon these negotiations on the terms as stated by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and reiterated by the right hon. and learned Member, we shall be discussing the setting up of the Makarios line. That is what I intended to indicate when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East.
If a period of time can be found for reflection, and for the assuaging of these terrible passions which have been roused, it may be that some solution which is neither one nor the other can be found. No one would be more glad than I. I am not a partitionist for its own sake. But these accusations of brutality and atrocity—this cul de sac into which we appear to have got—is a position from which we must escape. I am not a protagonist on its own merits of the partition of Ireland, of the severance of the Four Counties from the rest of Ireland. But I was in the House at the time when we suffered the anguish of the endless debates and clashes between the two sides—when the accusations made against British uniformed troops were made just as freely then as they are now.
We have to get out of that cul-de-sac somehow. It is no use the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East saying that we can brush this off, and that Palestine, Ireland and India all prove the impossibility and unwisdom of partition. Supposing that partition had not occurred in these cases. India would still be in a turmoil and a fury between Hindu, Moslem and British, with accusations and counter-accusations still going on; we should still be debating the question of Ireland monthly, and sometimes weekly, with accusations of exactly the kind that we have just heard,

and Arab would still be fighting Jew in Palestine with Britain involved at every step. That was so, at the time when all Palestine was under British Mandate. I remember bitterly the desperate position in which we then were.
It is not enough merely to say that partition is a bad solution. Of course it is a bad solution. But what is the alternative? That is what we are entitled to ask hon. Members opposite.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend say a word on the subject of British people in Cyprus putting up with the troubles that have ensued and believing—as we hope—that they will die down in time, as in Kenya and some other Colonies—Malaya, for example?

Mr. Elliot: I should be perfectly willing to discuss that, but I think that we need to find a certain degree of assent and agreement in some part of the island to that solution. If we can find that—and it may be that by delay, or still more by contemplation of the terrible alternatives we can secure that—again I should be willing; but to continue indefinitely a position in which the name and reputation or our country is admittedly impaired, and without the possibility of escaping from it in any way whatever, I do not think myself is a realistic solution to bring before the House of Commons at this stage.
My hon. Friends who will discuss this matter on this side of the Committee will no doubt carry that solution further. I admit that I am not only in opposition to the whole of the party opposite in the solution that I am suggesting, but in opposition to a great proportion of my own party. When I launched the suggestion originally, it was against the unanimous opposition of my own party, including the Front Bench. But things are what they are, and the consequences will be what they will be. Do not let us deceive ourselves. This solution has come further into the picture now because of the intransigence of Makarios, and for no other reason. It is Makarios who is wielding the axe of partition; if the axe falls it will be Makarios who has brought it down, and the line on which the axe falls will be the Makarios line. Only one man will be responsible for it.
I simply say that if there is a better solution, then, for the love of Heaven, let


us pursue it, bring it out, examine it here, and, if possible, secure it. I speak as a passionate phil-Hellene: I love and admire the Greeks more than any other people, except my own people, in the whole of the world. In the Mediterranean, I place them high above the Romans, great as the achievements of Rome were. In the arts and philosophy of Greece, no man of science, or of medicine, can name the name of Greece without a reverence and respect far above anything the Romans ever deserved. As to nationality, I am perfectly willing to adopt the statement of one of the greatest Greeks. Venezelos, who, when asked the definition of a Greek said, "To my mind a Greek is a man who feels like a Greek, who talks like a Greek, and who wants to be a Greek".
But that obviously does not apply to a Turk. The statement that was made just now by the Opposition is a statement that makes it necessary to take into account that there are people in Cyprus who do not feel like Greeks, do not talk like Greeks and do not want to be Greeks. To suggest that these people do not exist has no kind of relationship to the facts of the case at all.

Mr. Brockway: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in the middle of a sentence—

Mr. Elliot: My sentence is at an end and my speech is at an end also. I am doing my utmost to be as swift as I can. The question of partition has been brought up. It seemed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was, if I may use the phrase, attempting to "jump the gun"—to assume that everyone had ruled this out of account. I was anxious to show that one of the possible facts of the case is, certainly, an area in Cyprus great or small—it may be very small indeed—in which Turkish sovereignty should be exercised if an area in Cyprus were brought into existence where full Greek sovereignty were exercised. Those who are asking for one are automatically asking for the other also. This is a contention which I venture to lay before the Committee, as I have done on other occasions. If we can find a solution which is neither the one nor the other no one will be more happy than I.

Mr. Brockway: Is not the hon. Gentleman being a little modest in his estimate of who is responsible for partition? He suggested that Makarios was responsible? Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself first convert the Secretary of State for the Colonies to that idea and then did not the Secretary of State for the Colonies convert the Turkish Government to that idea?

Mr. Elliot: I think that the hon. Gentleman has really exaggerated what I can do, and my power, either in the House or in the world. To suggest that I could convince Her Majesty's Government here, and through them the Government of Asia Minor, is putting the achievements even of the most influential back bencher a little high. I am merely stating that we should recognise the facts. If Makarios had held out his hand and said, "Come, we will go forward together", we might have got something done but, until he does that, partition is in fact the only solution.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: What is striking is the contrast between the last sentence of the main speech of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) and his interruption earlier in the debate. He ended his speech by saying that he would be very glad indeed if some solution could be found other than partition. I am sure the Committee will remember how startled we all were by the right hon. Gentleman's interjection earlier, when he said that the one and only question which really ought to he debated was when partition should take place—

Mr. Elliot: I did not say that.

Mr. Davies: —and that if we did not do so the debate would he unreal.

Mr. Elliot: Not "ought to be" but "was being." In the present conditions, from the speech of the Opposition, that seemed to be the only one we could with realism discuss.

Mr. Davies: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be taking this pessimistic view. He seemed to suggest that when there were people in an island of different race, origin and religion it was impossible that they could ever work together. Coming from a right hon.


Member who represents a Scottish Division, I was very much surprised by his argument. We seemed to have lived together amazingly well in this House for 250 years. Here also there are two religions and the Monarch on ascending the Throne has to take two separate oaths to protect the religion of Scotland and that of England. We seem to have carried on extremely well.
I am sure we all agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said. We are wondering if there will come an end to these debates. They have been going on, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, in regard to Ireland and the Colonies and so on for at least 180 years. Challenges have been thrown from one side to the other and accusations made, but ultimately we have had to arrive at a settlement. A settlement has been arrived at in the long run, even when there is a difference of race. Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman would quote the case of Canada? No one would suggest for a moment that the one and only solution there would be partition.

Mr. Walter Elliot: May we take it further and say that no one would suggest for a moment that the partition of North America along the 49th Parallel should be done away with?

Mr. Davies: Surely, again, the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that would be a matter entirely for the people of North America and not one in which he should be the dictator and say that what we have decided in the House should be accepted once for all and for ever. I am anxious to see how we can bring an end to these disputes.
It has been said from the other side of the Committee that this is no longer a mere colonial matter, that it is not even a strategic matter. But above all, surely, it is a matter which concerns the people of Cyprus more than anybody else in the whole world, and one hears so little about their point of view. Cyprus is their home, and has been for thousands of years. It is their future which is at stake. They are the people most concerned, and they are the pople we should consider primarily and almost entirely.
Having got so near to them some time ago when the Secretary of State and the

Archbishop were together in Cyprus, why has the matter remained not only unsettled but in such a state that they seem to be getting further apart? As I understood it—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am overstating the case—there was an agreement that there should be a constitutional Government formed; that it would be on a universal suffrage; that when the Parliament was elected it would be perfectly obvious who should form the Government of the day and that they would be responsible for all domestic matters within Cyprus. There was agreement that there should be a complete guarantee of fair treatment for the minority and that, for the time being, the responsibility for foreign affairs—the defence of the island—would remain with this country and that the time would come—the amount of time was unsettled—when, having had experience of government, the island would be able to determine what should be its future, whether it should be completely independent or joined with anyone else.
It was along those lines that they were discussing the matter, and then came the exile of the Archbishop to the Seychelles. Since then he has been released, but he is not allowed to go back to Cyprus, and here we are still waiting for the settlement that everyone is anxious to see.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies seemed to be expecting that the first step should be taken by the Archbishop. Why? Surely it is not merely the Archbishop with whom we are concerned. We are concerned about all the people of Cyprus, whether they be Greek or Turkish. It is their future we are considering. Why, therefore, should we say that this is a sort of game where someone has to take the first step? Why should not the first step be taken by the Government? The Government should say, "We got very far when last we were debating this matter. Why cannot we now take up the matter again?" The Government should say, "We are anxious to get a complete settlement."
I agree that a conference should not be confined to the Archbishop or even to his advisers. If it be necessary and desired, let the representatives of the Turkish minority come by all means. Let it be a round-table conference, where there would be plain speaking and everyone would do his best to express his


views about what is required for a fair settlement which would mean a permanent settlement. Surely that is what we are all anxious about. I suggest that there should be a complete cessation of all recriminations from both sides. Let there be an open invitation to come along to see whether we can settle this matter. I suggest that there should he no preliminary conditions laid down by either side, but that we should meet round the table prepared for an open discussion with only one object in view, that of a fair settlement of this matter once and for all.
It has been mentioned time and again by hon. Members in debates on this matter that what hurts more than anything else is that our own good name is at stake. The people of this country have deserved so well of humanity. They have a wonderful record which has been enhanced during the last few years. It was recognised what had to be done in India, Pakistan. Ceylon and Burma, and there is the right hon. Gentleman's own record with regard to Ghana, Nigeria and Malaya. Whenever we mention those matters and we ask also that freedom should be restored to certain satellite States in Europe, the finger of scorn is pointed at us and people say, "Look at Cyprus."—[Interruption.]. I beg the Government, and specially the right hon. Gentleman—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That is an amazing analogy.

Mr. Davies: The noble Lord is quite wrong. I am not making an analogy. It is a charge which is being thrown out. It is not justified in any shape or form, but it is made. Let us remove every cause of suspicion or any opportunity for making such a charge. Our record is so fine. Do not let hon. Members think for a moment that I would not challenge any such charge brought against us, but it is being brought—

Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, may I ask what he seriously thinks would happen to the Turkish minority were it left to the tender mercies of E.O.K.A.?

Mr. Davies: Surely I made that quite clear, and it was part of the discussion going on between the Archbishop and the Secretary of State, namely, that there

should be complete safeguards for the Turkish minority—not merely an undertaking given to us, but an undertaking given in such a way that the question could be tried at the International Court at The Hague. We have already had experience of an undertaking being given to us alone and when we asked that the undertaking be carried out—for example, in South Africa—we were challenged. I understand that in this case everyone was prepared to go further and say it should be an undertaking given not merely to Britain but in such a form that we could be certain it would be carried out, or otherwise punishment would follow.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has twice referred to what he understood was one aspect of my talks with Archbishop Makarios. For the record, and in the interests of historical accuracy, I must make it clear that there was never at any stage the slightest discussion on my part with Archbishop Makarios, or any suggestion on my part, about the timing of the application of the principle of self-determination. We discussed the principle as a principle, but never its application. I have made it quite clear on behalf of the Government that now our view must be that if self-determination is to be applied it must be equal self-determination for the Turks as for the Greeks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is rightly sensitive about our good name in the world, but I cannot believe that our good name would be enhanced were we to dismiss as light the fears of our great ally, Turkey, whose interest is not by any means confined to the minority but exists because of geographical considerations.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I did say that there had been no discussions about timing, but that the principle of self-determination should be accorded. I recognise, as did the right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove, that the Turkish voice should he heard at the round-table conference. The Government want to see this matter settled, as we all do; the right attitude for them to adopt is to send out an invitation to all concerned saying, "It is necessary to settle this matter", and that they should come to a round-table conference here in London. The right hon. Gentleman should make a statement tonight that that is the Government's intention.
If he did, it would give great relief not only to this Committee and to the country, but to the Commonwealth as well.

7.0 p.m.

Major Patrick Wall: The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said that the good name of this country would be blackened by the Government by taking no action in Cyprus. Surely he realises that the Radcliffe constitutional proposals give the majority of elected members to the representatives of the Greek Cypriot people, while recognising the rights of the Turkish minority. In other words, they do just what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for. He ought not to say, therefore, that the Government have done nothing.
If we were to accept the apparently attractive suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that representatives of Greek and Turkish Cypriots should come to a conference here in London, does he think that those representatives would dare to express their real views? Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that there is still terrorism in the island even though it is now driven underground. They are also bound to be affected by their mother countries, Greece and Turkey, the latter having said that she cannot risk the island of Cyprus becoming Communist, as it might do if it fell under Greek sovereignty.
The majority of Greek Cypriots really believe that if a Socialist Government came into power in this country at the next General Election two years hence Enosis would be accorded to Cyprus within the following four or five years. I hope that the important statement that has been made in this Committee today will be noted in Cyprus and that this belief will be somewhat shaken by today's statement made from the Opposition Front Bench. This is why the the Cypriots refuse to consider the Radcliffe proposals with any degree of reasonableness. I hope that the idea of immediate Enosis has been rebutted by the statement made twice today from the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] The belief to which I refer is that if a Socialist Government came in this country they would accord Enosis to Cyprus within four or five years. I understand that suggestion to have been rebutted.

Mrs. L. Jeger: The statement made from our Front Bench was that, after a period of self-government, self-determination would be conceded. If that took the form of Enosis it would not be within our power or within our policy to deny it.

Major Wall: The Opposition spokesman said—the hon. Lady who has just interrupted me can check it in HANSARD tomorrow—that the period of probation would have to be of a considerable length. I referred to four or five years, approximately. If the Greek people expect to get Enosis within four or five years from a Socialist Government obviously they are not going to try to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government now. I reafirm that a very important statement has been made by the Opposition in this Committee today.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who led for the Opposition, started by discussing the value of Cyprus as a base. Cyprus has never been regarded as an alternative to Suez. It was only to be a command headquarters and to accommodate a brigade group. That is quite a different matter from the scale of the Suez base. In the new defence set up the probabilities are that the main army reinforcements will be in East Africa. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with this. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East thought that Cyprus should accommodate an airstrip, but I suggest it is vital as a base for our strategic air force for the protection of the Middle Eastern oil. Modern history has proved that we cannot use a base unless we have sovereignty over it.
As to agreement with our allies in N.A.T.O., Turkey and Greece have a right to be considered in this matter of Cyprus. Turkey is an essential ally because of her strategic position in the world and her loyalty to us in the Bagdad Pact. We must remember that she fears, and has a right to fear, being surrounded by Communist States. She has Communist Russia to her north and she fears that the rest of the satellites in the Balkans would follow a Russian lead. Greece and the island of Cyprus might also go behind the Iron Curtain or at least go much further to the left. Turkey has the right to defend her strategic interests.
If some of the more extreme views voiced by Members of the Opposition in the past were to become a fact and Enosis were accorded, or there were any idea of its being accorded, within a few years after a Socialist Government assumed power in this country, it would merely mean exchanging the bullets of E.O.K.A. for the bullets of Volkan. The position of the British Government and of British troops would not be one whit the better. We should still have terrorism in Cyprus and possibly a civil war on our hands.
Why is Greece so interested in Cyprus? I believe that the main reason is emotional based on expansion coupled with exploitation. Cyprus has become a matter of party politics in Greece. The Opposition in Greece will no doubt use the presence of Archbishop Makarios in that country to overthrow the present Government of Greece if there were any sign of that Government trying to reach a reasonable accommodation or compromise with Her Majesty's Government over the position of Cyprus. That is what makes the position of the Greek Government so difficult. I believe they would try to reach a compromise solution if only they were allowed to do so by their internal party politics. Even in this country we know how difficult settlements can be when party politics gets involved with our strategic rights and interests. It is fair to say that the Greek Government can have no policy on the matter of Cyprus. They may wish to come to a reasonable agreement but they know it cannot be so because of the strength of the Opposition backed by the Archbishop's propaganda machine.
I turn to the suggested alternative of the N.A.T.O. solution. What this means I have not yet been able to find out. Does it involve handing our sovereignty over the island to N.A.T.O.; or does it mean a three-fold partition with the British enclave containing the base being handed over to N.A.T.O.? That to me is not a solution but simply an abnegation of British responsibility. I should like my right hon. Friend to answer this question, although I do expect he will not be able to do so. What is the United States doing in this matter? The influence of the United States in the Middle East has not always been to the advantage of this

country. The best gesture the United States could give towards the furtherance of good Anglo-American relationships would be to back Her Majesty's Government's solution to the Cyprus problem by their acceptance of the Radcliffe constitution, as the fairest compromise between the conflicting differences of opinion.
With regard to E.O.K.A., a tribute should be paid, and has indeed been paid, to the present Governor of Cyprus, who already has his place in military history. We shall pay tribute to his leadership of the troops in Cyprus who have already taken the bite out of E.O.K.A. This is a great achievement and I believe that in so doing the Governor has retained the respect, and, in many cases, the affection of the Cypriot population, by the way he has undertaken and handled his incredibly difficult task.
When we consider the question of atrocities—I will not detain the Committee by going into details—we must remember that Archbishop Makarios maintains a propaganda organisation in this country, indeed in this very city. It is a pity that certain hon. Members opposite appear to give rather a lot of consideration to the outpourings of this propaganda machine. I would also remind the Committee that one of the two English-language newspapers in Cyprus, the Times of Cyprus, is financed by Greek interests and is printed on printing presses belonging to the Archbishop. Her Majesty's Government closed down his propaganda machines when terrorism became rampant but the presses are now hired by the Times of Cyprus from the Archbishop for, I understand, the sum of £20 per month. Now the Times of Cyprus is printed on these presses belonging to the Archbishop and financed and backed by Greek money—not Cypriot-Greek but Greek money.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that the Times of Cyprus is influenced in its policy by the fact that certain interests meet the cost of its machinery and printing establishment? If so, what newspaper in the world is not influenced by those who finance it in a similar way?

Major Wall: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. I am not saying that it should not be so. I am merely pointing


out that it is so and that the leading articles of the Times of Cyprus, which are sometimes taken as gospel by hon. Members opposite, need not be so taken because the paper is backed by Greek money and produced on the Archbishop's presses. That is the point which I am trying to make, and I hope that I have made it.
I do not wish to detain the Committee for very much longer. To my mind there are two alternatives—the Radcliffe constitution and partition. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) and many others, I do not like partition, and surely we can agree that the Radcliffe constitution offers a reasonable compromise. I think it unlikely—and I ask my right hon. Friends to take note of this—that, under the present conditions in Cyprus, Greek Cypriots will come forward now or in the next few months and state that they will work the Radcliffe constitution. Nevertheless, I believe that if this constitution were imposed and if the people of the island were told, for example, that the Radcliffe constitution would come into effect in three months' time and that every British subject over twenty-one would have a vote on the island, we should get an elected Government even if it consisted only of the Turks, the Communists, the Armenians and the British. I believe that the Greek Cypriots would then immediately jump on to the band-wagon.
Bearing in mind the Middle-Eastern mentality and the history of this part of the world, we must not expect people to come forward to work the constitution in the existing difficult conditions on the island. We must say, "This is what we have decided, this is the solution, and this is what we shall do." In view of what hon. Members opposite have said today, it seems probable that the Opposition would go quite a long way with Her Majesty's Government if they took such a decision.
As I have said previously to the Committee, it is extremely difficult to contemplate partition in Cyprus. It is extremely difficult to contemplate dividing an island twenty-four times the size of the Isle of Wight. Incidentally it is twenty-four times the size of the Isle of Wight, not six times as was stated by the Times of Cyprus in its issue of 1st July.
Nevertheless, partition is a possible alternative which has been recognised by some hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. If we come to such a solution, let there be a division three ways—one part to the Greeks, one part to the Turks and a British enclave covering British bases and under British sovereignty. I think that would meet the stated desires of the three motherlands, Britain, Turkey and Greece, even though it might be disastrous to the people of Cyprus. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I think that such a solution could be disastrous, because both Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots tell me that this alternative solution could eventually lead to war between their motherlands. They may be right or they may be wrong. Their motherlands seem to want partition; certainly Turkey seems to want it. Perhaps they think that the propaganda pressure in this country is causing Her Majesty's Government to think again and possibly to yield to the Greek demands. I hope that they will find, after reading the Official Report of this debate, that their fears are groundless.
I believe that we must make a decision on the problem of Cyprus and that we cannot let it drag on too much longer In my opinion, the right decision would be to say that on a certain date the Radcliffe constitution would come into effect. I believe that if that decision were backed by the leaders of the Opposition we should be well on the way to a solution of this intractable problem which would enable Cyprus eventually to become self-governing within the British Commonwealth and which would bring together those ancient allies, Britain, Turkey and Greece.

Miss Lee: May I have your permission, Major Anstruther-Gray, to make a correction in an important name which I used during my speech? I do not want the wrong name to appear in HANSARD.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: Certainly.

Miss Lee: When I referred to the first of the Cypriot prisoners whom I interviewed at Wormwood Scrubs this morning, the Colonial Secretary quite properly intervened to ask me to give his name. I looked at my notes and gave it as Renos Themistokli Kyriakides. I apologise for


misleading the Committee. The name was in fact Athanasios Costa Sophoclous. I should be very glad if that correction could be made.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I was horrified by what the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) said about partition. It seems to me that a point which has been overlooked in all the discussion about the partition of Cyprus is that the position in Cyprus is quite different from that in other countries where partition has been attempted, for example, Palestine, Ireland and India. In no part of Cyprus is there a Turkish majority. In all parts of the island there is a Greek majority. In other countries where partition was carried out there were parts where the national minority had a local majority. That is not the case is Cyprus.
I am therefore quite certain that if partition took place and if part of the island were allocated to the Turks, it would at once cause war. The Greek majority in the parts proposed to be handed over to Turkey would fight rather than permit the Turks to come in, because they would be frightened of what would happen when the Turks arrived. Possibly there might be an exchange of population, but before that could be attempted there would be war.
If the Greek majority in the parts proposed to be handed over to the Turks were to fight the Turks, then they would be backed by their mother country, because the nationalist feelings mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) are so strong in Greece, on the part of both the Government and the Opposition, that no Greek Government could sit still and see a Greek majority, in parts of Cyprus which were to be handed over to Turkey, fighting against the Turks without themselves being compelled by public opinion to intervene. I am therefore certain that partition would mean a war between Greece and Turkey.
Despite what has appeared in the Press, in my view public opinion is much stronger in Greece than in Turkey. The Greeks are much more politically minded. They argue and discuss all these questions in the market-place and they force their Government to follow

the line which they wish to be followed. That may also be the case in Turkey in large towns such as Istanbul and Izmir, but the great mass of the population of Turkey live in villages scattered over a wide area and have little or no interest in political questions. They accept a lead from their Government. Consequently, if the Turkish Government do not wish for war they have in their hands the propaganda to prevent war.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Is it not a fact that the Opposition in Turkey, the Republican Party, holds just as strong views about the Cyprus question as does the Government Party?

Mr. Parker: Yes, but the Turks are nowhere near as politically minded as are the Greeks. Consequently, even though the politicians in Ankara might adopt such an attitude, if the Turkish Government were prepared to resist them the great mass of the people would follow the lead of the Government rather than that of the politicians. The opposite is the case in Greece, where the mass of the people are politically minded, where they argue all these questions in the market-place and where I am certain that public opinion would force the Government to follow a certain line of action even though the Government wanted to take a different line.
We must remember that only 17½ per cent. of the population in Cyprus is Turkish. Hon. Members opposite have said that self-determination must mean self-determination for the Turks as well as for the Greeks.

Major Wall: Would the hon. Member not agree that this percentage of the population owns 42 per cent. of the land?

Mr. Parker: They own a high proportion of the land certainly, but is it to be said that l7½ per cent. should have the right to dictate to 80 per cent.?
What is likely to happen to a partitioned country? Let us follow this argument elsewhere. In the Commonwealth, we are at present moving towards self-government in many countries of mixed population. We are just passing legislation to give home rule to Malaya. That is a country of three peoples—Malays, Chinese and Indians. The whole


possibility of self-government depends on all three working together, but there is a very substantial element of Chinese who do not like the proposals that are put forward. If they take a very strong line, are we to agree that there must be some kind of partition of Malaya?
Again, what is to happen to some of the other Commonwealth territories, such as Mauritius, where we have Indians and French, or Fiji, where we have Indians and Fijians? Are we to carry through partition in such territories? If so, where is the possibility of creating viable economic units of self-government? If we are to move towards self-government in the Commonwealth, we have to accept the idea that we must find proper economically sized units.
That being so, it is even more absurd to try to partition a small island like Cyprus. Suppose we applied partition to the, Channel Islands, where part of the population still speak the old Norman French and sometimes resents the English immigrants? If they were to take a very strong line, would we agree to partition there? Obviously, it would be absurd. Therefore, I would say that it is right and reasonable to give the 17½ per cent. Turkish minority certain rights and safeguards, with which I will try to deal a little later but to rule out partition.
On the, strategic point, the Turks have been arguing that they cannot allow an island off their south coast to be occupied by military forces which might be a threat to them. I would say that that could be met by insisting on neutralisation of the island, apart from bases that might be held there by this country or by N.A.T.O. And if the Turks raise this question of military danger and the need to add part of the island to their territory they are fishing in very troubled waters, because if, as a result of partition, there is war between Greece and Turkey they will not be the only people to be involved in that war.
A Power so far forgotten in these discussions is Soviet Russia. Would not Soviet Russia intervene in such a war? The Turks would do well to remember that the only important territory which formerly belonged to Tsarist Russia and to which Soviet Russia lays claim is the territory of Kars at the other

end of Turkey. As I say, that used to belong to Tsarist Russia, and there are, therefore, historical reasons which can be used as a basis of a claim to it by the Russians.
South of the Caucasus is the State of Armenia in the Soviet Union, which has developed over the last 35 years or so, into which have moved the Armenian population from all over the Middle East. That State is now very densely populated, and, on the whole, prosperous, but having filled up all the Armenian territory inside the Soviet Union, there is a growing demand to get some of Turkish Armenia added on historical grounds and to enable expansion to take place. If trouble arose between Greece and Turkey, that situation might well be exploited by Russia.
There is also the question of the Straits which, again, might be overlooked. The Russians have always wanted to control the Straits, and dislike Turkish control of those waters. It is interesting to note that the first time in modern times that the Russians intervened in this part of the world, in the days of Catherine the Great, they pressed the idea of putting a revived Byzantine Empire in control of the Straits. After Greek independence, the Russians, very mistakenly from their point of view, abandoned Greece, became pan-Slav, and wanted to control the Straits themselves.
Let us look elsewhere at Russian ambitions recently. They pushed Poland to the Oder-Niesse line—from their point of view a very successful strategic and political move, because, to defend those frontiers, Poland has to seek Russian assistance. Had the Russians adopted the idea, as they still might, of putting Greece in control of Constantinople and the Straits, Greece would be dependent on Russia to maintain these territories, and Russia might succeed in permanently making Greece a real satellite by putting her in charge of the Straits.
The Turks would, therefore, be very unwise to fish in troubled waters and to raise this question of Cyprus partition for strategic reasons. They might provoke a conflict which would undoubtedly bring Russia into the picture, and Russia coming into the picture has quite a number of strong cards that she might play against Turkey in such a case. That


should be borne in mind, not only by the Turks, but by hon. Members when thinking of the possible future of the Middle East—

Mr. Walter Elliot: Then do I understand the hon. Member's argument to he that we should continue to hold Cyprus as a bastion of Turkey against Russia, for which it was originally handed over by Turkey to us, as he has sketched out a very interesting strategic point?

Mr. Parker: I do not think that at the moment, with modern weapons, Cyprus is very much use for such a purpose, but I think it would be unwise of the Turks to try to take steps which might risk a war between themselves and Greece, in which they would not be the only people taking part.
I turn to my solution. Cyprus for long was part of the Ottoman Empire, and not only there but in other parts of that Empire there was a system of rule by which large units of people had wide measures of self-government. The Orthodox Greeks in Cyprus had their millet with wide powers of self-government; in fact, the Archbishop has his strong traditional position because, in the past, he was elected to represent the Greek community there to the Turkish rulers. Why should not the opposite be introduced? Let us have a Turkish millet with very wide powers over the Turkish population in the island; powers guaranteed to them by any peace arrangements. They could run their own schools and institutions and have full citizenship in every way, but with rather special privileges if they belonged to that community.
I should have thought that reasonable guarantees could he given to the Turkish minority by which they could govern themselves over the whole of the island without partition and without tearing up their roots and their rights. That could be written into the local law and into international law, and if we continued to keep a base, either British or N.A.T.O., in the island, those forces would be there to see that the Turks had their rights, and full justice. I think that something along those lines would be the right solution; keeping the Greeks and Turks there, and giving the Turks full self-government through a millet system but remaining part of the general community, and with far more extensive powers than the

Turks have at present in Western Thrace or the Greeks have in Constantinople or in other parts of Turkey. The Government should seek some solution on those lines, ruling out partition, but not ruling out giving reasonable safeguards and self-government in the island to the Turkish minority.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I find myself in a surprising measure of agreement with much that has been said by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), and I hope that he will understand it if I defer until later the remarks I had intended to make on partition, rather than follow him at once. I can then keep more readily to the sequence of ideas that I have in mind.
I for one am grateful to the Opposition for allotting one of their Supply Days to this subject. I believe that in a period when policy is being formed we have a right to express our views, and certainly any minority which may be in the House has not only a right but a duty to give warning of the position in which it may find itself. However, we gathered from the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that although there is apparently in mind the germ of an idea for a solution to the problem, none the less the strategic reappraisal is not yet completed and we are assured that whatever is done will not affront the internal peace and tranquillity of the island.
One is at least relieved to know that much, in view of the very widespread Press reports that have been circulating for many days, uncontradicted and, I suspect, in certain quarters encouraged. At any rate, these Press reports have had the effect of softening up opinion in the country and in this House.
The whole subject of atrocities is inseparable from a problem of this character. With a problem of this sort set practically in the Balkans—anyway, half way between the Balkans and the Levant—it is inevitable that there should be atrocity stories and, if I may put it without disrespect to hon. Members opposite who have taken great trouble to look into these matters, atrocity-mongering. Atrocity-mongering is a normal weapon of politics in that part of the world. Anyone who, like myself, has worked


there as a staff correspondent of The Times for some years on end will know that one is flooded all the time with atrocity stories of every sort from every party in whatever Balkan or Levantine country one is working.
The real problem to which we should be giving our minds tonight is this. Here is the first occasion since the completion of the Suez débacle in which we as a Committee have been looking at the practical application of the Defence White Paper. We should pose this question quite brutally to ourselves: are we ready to protect our foreign trade, our living standards and our Commonwealth lines of communication, or are we prepared to abdicate that? Are we prepared to say that it is not worth spending 20,000 troops and a quarter of our strategic reserve, and behind some facade of N.A.T.O. arrangements place ourselves and our interests under the protection of others?
That is the basic issue that we have got to face. First, what is our own British interest in Cyprus? It is important to us in protecting our access to raw materials and markets. Hon. Members may argue that it is irrelevant, but then they must prove that it is irrelevent. I believe that is the way in which we have to look at it. We are discussing this matter in the context of certain very important international engagements having been torn up. I allude to the Suez Canal Convention of 1888. We are looking at it in the context of the Bermuda Conference and all sorts of projects alluded to in the communiqué at that time about new pipe lines in the Middle East whose safety is to be guaranteed by treaty. We have to look at this in the context of the enforcement of treaties when they are liable to be broken. We have to consider what protection we, Britain, would be prepared or able to give to our own sea lifelines —let us say, tankers and merchant ships.
Just because for ten years our merchant ships have not been attacked on the high seas we are in no way justified in forgetting these things. We do not know who our enemies are going to be. Many people are obsessed by what I call the Russian bogy. Some people even try to work up the Russian bogy. One thing that is obvious is that military alliances are not very long enduring, because enemies change. We are today the

allies of Germany—only 12 years after being their enemy. Very shortly we may also be allies of Japan. It is only a matter of a few years since we were allied to Russia. Therefore, in looking at our interests we must distinguish between our own inherent interest and any temporary military alliances which we may have in any quarter.
It is not only a question of oil. Hon. Members sometimes perhaps overlook the vast quantity and various types of commerce, with countries that we are bound to, which pass through the Mediterranean. Inward bound there are Indian manganese and tin; Malayan tin, bauxite and rubber; Australian wheat, zinc and wool; Pakistani jute and cotton East African chrome and Indonesian rubber. All of those make jobs for our people and help to ensure our standard of living and are basis to the welfare state. Then there are Burmese rice, Mauritian sugar and so on. Outward bound there is our own export of capital goods of one kind and another—metal goods and cars, capital goods for Australia, India, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf. It is commerce on which we live and on which our capacity to deal with inflation depends. Protection of that commerce is vital and critical to our national policy.
It is against that background that I ask myself what is the present estimate of the importance of Cyprus. We gathered from the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence early this afternoon that whether or not there is ambiguity in the White Paper, at least the reappraisal of Cyprus has not yet been completed. That was the re-assurance given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. But an appraisal was made a year ago by Sir Anthony Eden, and in his speech at Norwich he said:
The United Kingdom's vital interest in Cyprus is not confined to its N.A.T.O. aspect.
He went on to say:
Our country's industrial life and that of Western Europe depends today, and must depend for many years to come, on oil supplies from the Middle East. If ever our oil resources were in peril, we should be compelled to defend them. The facilities we need in Cyprus are part of that defence. We cannot therefore accept any doubt about their availability… there can be no question of this country yielding over any essential element in the defence of its legitimate and vital interests. Examples of this are the Persian Gulf, Cyprus and Aden.


I want to ask the Government to bear those distinctions in mind, and to take the first opportunity of reaffirming them because the White Paper by comparison is somewhat ambiguous. The White Paper refers to our interests in the Persian Gulf in this way:
In the Arabian peninsula, Britain must at all times "—
mark the words "at all times"—
be ready to defend Aden Colony and Protectorates and the territories on the Persian Gulf for whose defence she is responsible. For this task, land, air and sea forces have to be maintained in that area and in East Africa. In addition, Britain has undertaken in the Baghdad Pact to co-operate with the other signatory States for security and defence, and for the prevention of Communist encroachment and infiltration. In the event of emergency, British forces in the Middle East area would be made avilable to support the Alliance. These would include bomber squadrons based in Cyprus capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
The distinction is that as far as the Gulf is concerned we have an absolute, direct, independent, distinct British obligation, whereas, so far as one can judge from the White Paper, that is not asserted with regard to Cyprus. That is the source of one of the anxieties which harrow me and my hon. Friends who, with very great reluctance, found themselves compelled recently to take the most unpleasant step of refusing the Parliamentary Whip, while, of course, remaining loyal, enthusiastic and active members of the Conservative Party.
The question, therefore, which one must answer is, what sort of base is necessary to our interests in Cyprus? That, presumably, is being considered in the reappraisal which is now being made. Only a little more than a year ago, in May, 1956, there was issued a second edition of this document, a copy of which I have here, which was distributed officially to the troops in Cyprus. It is entitled, "Why we are in Cyprus." I can only conclude that that document was meant to inform and illuminate the troops, to encourage them in their hardships, so that they might at least know what they were fighting and suffering for. I read in that document—and I hope we shall know before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess whether this statement is repudiated or not:
If we cede sovereignty over it"—

that is, Cyprus—
we can only have our base in this area on sufferance by Treaty or lease.
It goes on:
The Island is so small that it would be extremely difficult to have a military island within an island. We need to be able to ensure in the last resort, e.g., control of communications, ports, and facilities scattered over the Island.
I would point out in parenthesis that, if we were thinking of Cyprus as a base for an aerial delivery of nuclear weapons, we cannot transport by air to an airfield everything which an airfield needs. The document continues:
We need a base on British territory, not one leased from a country which does not share in our obligations, and might not even approve of our policy in respect of them. Already Greece is under pressure from certain Arab States in some aspects of her Middle East policy.
It therefore follows from this document of only a year ago that we need sovereignty over Cyprus for our own interests and that we cannot rely merely on a base which is in some way subject to the by your leave of others, whether allies whose interests are in other directions, or the nearest neighbour, Greece or Turkey. If these conditions still hold good—and we have a right to be told before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess—our mere participation in a N.A.T.O. base could not be adequate to our interests.
The debacle of Suez showed very clearly that whatever our alliance with the United States may be against Communism, when it is recognised as, as it were, directed from Russia, the alliance still apparently turns into obstruction and even hostility when we are protecting our own interests. Of course, these conditions preclude reliance upon a base which is any way under foreign sovereignty.
Since the Minister of Defence came back from his tour there has been a Press conference which was widely reported, and it became easy to conclude that the Government are very seriously considering transferring the principal Middle East base to East Africa, to Mombasa. I feel bound to point out, in relation to Suez and the protection of our sea lanes in the Eastern Mediterranean, that whereas Cyprus is only 300 miles from Suez, Mombasa is 2,500 miles.
Anyone who is going to argue that we can protect our sea lanes in the Eastern Mediterranean by aircraft from Mombasa ought to have a look at the map. Cyprus is only about a thousand miles from the Persian Gulf and Kuwait, but that same sheikdom is 2,500 miles from Mombasa. If it is argued that we have no over-flying rights over the countries between, that argument seems unsatisfactory because we have both Turkey and Iraq as partners, whom we boast about as partners in the Bagdad Pact. Moreover, if it be argued that we cannot protect our sea lanes in the Eastern Mediterranean from Cyprus, and if it be also admitted that Mombasa is too far away, Malta is likewise too far away. To protect our sea lanes in the Eastern Mediterranean, we simply must be in Cyprus.
What are the solutions to the local Cyprus problems? Here I come back to what was said by the hon. Member for Dagenham. I am sorry he has had to slip out. Even if it is old ground, it is as well to go over it again and to reaffirm that there is nothing absolute about the right to self-determination. Otherwise hon. and right hon. Members opposite would have agreed Malta was entitled to it, whereas the Round-Table Conference did not so agree. If there were some absolute, inalienable right to self-determination, the great Powers would not have forbidden Austria to exercise that right. If there were an absolute, inherent right to self-determination in the law of nature, then the League of Nations in its heyday of idealism in 1922 would not have denied it to the Aaland Islands in the Baltic. Burke said that in politics there was uncommonly little room for abstract principles. But if hon. and right hon. Members opposite continue to insist on an abstract principle of self-determination I would remind them of the pressure on Greece from the Slays to the north and their claims to access to the Aegean.
If self-determination is to be applied logically it can lead only to partition. This argument was put convincingly by the hon. Member for Dagenham, and with so much of what he said I agreed. Partition in Cyprus can lead only to a Greco-Turkish war.
Here is one of the great frontiers of the world, the frontier between Christendom and Islam, a frontier which for the

past 1,500 years has witnessed atrocities, a frontier which can blow up any day, a frontier which blew up not so long ago when in Constantinople there were those hideous riots with Turks chasing Greeks through the streets and looting their properties. It is a frontier which is in turmoil all the time. Why is it that the Turks are now claiming that there should be some inquiry about what is going on in the Dodecanese under Greek rule? This is not a static, stable frontier. It is a tense frontier, and, as I said just now, has been so for the best part of 1,500 years.
If we partition this tiny island, with a population no larger than the City of Edinburgh, there will be atrocities, and the atrocities of which we have heard today will be as nothing to what those will be. And what will happen in the island will also happen in Greece and Turkey, for once a thing like that starts we cannot stop it spreading like a prairie fire.
Here again I come back to what the hon. Member for Dagenham said. If it once starts and there is trouble with the Christian community in Constantinople, only a fool can imagine that the Russians will be blind to the temptation to come in to protect the Christian minority. Russia, even since the Communist revolution, has claimed the right to protect the Christians of Constantinople.
When the Patriarch is installed, the Russian Consul-General in Constantinople still takes part in the ceremony in order to assert Russia's traditional right. If the Greeks and the Turks are set against one another and the trouble follows the frontier between Christianity and Islam, it will bring Russia to the Straits as sure as anything. Surely, if that is not appreciated by the Foreign Office, which is usually fairly far-seeing in these matters, let us hope that my words tonight are read in the State Department in Washington.
I believe, therefore, that self-determination, since it would lead to partition, is "out" and not practicable. Now we read of the project of some kind of N.A.T.O. consortium. One cannot expect an authoritative denial now of the stories that are going round, because they are in the nature of rumours. But stories are going round that we are threatening partition in order to belabour the Greeks,


while the Americans are talking to Turkey with money, and that together we are saying to the Greeks and the Turks that it is worth their while to come in and try some third solution. Whether we are trying to bully or bribe I do not know, but it is certainly true that the whole world has been filled with rumours in recent days that a so-called N.A.T.O. solution is in mind.
If hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and members of the Government, raise their eyebrows when some of us suspect American pressure, where do these stories come from? Some of them come from Whitehall—any newspaper man knows that—and others come from Washington, or they come from Washington first and a newspaper correspondent asks Whitehall whether there is anything in them and then they are given encouragement. There is a strong American stench about this idea of a N.A.T.O. consortium.
Would it solve the problem? Would three or five Powers be able to accomplish in this tiny island what one Power cannot do? Would a N.A.T.O. force, or a United Nations force with Mr. Hammarskjoeld in charge, somehow accomplish in Cyprus what we cannot? Only if this is an American intervention, behind an international N.A.T.O. facade with the whole weight of America behind it. And that is the sort of intervention of which some of us are particularly afraid.
Do we imagine that the idea of Enosis will die down in a day because N.A.T.O. takes over, or that the anxieties of the Turks will evaporate from one day to the next? And what about the question of the civil servant in Cyprus? There are in the service thousands of Greeks and Turks alike who have been loyal to us. They have backed us and have been loyal to the Crown. What will their position be? I hope that these matters will be borne in mind and that we shall have clearer answers when the time comes and policy is enunciated. I pray that that policy will not be the idea of a N.A.T.O. consortium.
I was impressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) who argued cogently that the chances of self-government on the Radcliffe basis were better now than they had been. I agree, thanks to the

rather unexpected intervention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who opened the debate, because whatever may have been the authoritative policy of the other side of the Committee, it has been widely believed in Greece that if the Labour Government got into office Enosis would come about within a few years. Therefore, I hope that the B.B.C. and everybody will blazon abroad what was said from the Front Bench opposite today, which I take to be a helpful contribution towards a settlement of our problem.
I have a different approach. I do not believe that at the end of the day even the Radcliffe constitution carries the full answer, unless the people of Cyprus know where they are going, where they can expect to go and also where they can expect not to go. We are bound to recognise that there is a strong Hellenic aspiration to be associated with other Hellenes. There is an equally strong Turkish aspiration to be associated with other Turks, in addition to Turkish geographic and strategic considerations. There is a conflict between the nationalism of the nineteenth century and the altogether twentieth century project which we are concerned with building—a Commonwealth of nations, an association of Commonwealth citizens which straddles a quarter of the earth's surface and includes 650 million people. The contrast is between nineteenth century nationalism and what we are trying to build in the world.
How can they be reconciled? I believe that it is possible, on a quite different plane, to get a reconciliation by means of a dual nationality. The idea was put out years ago. It was studied and pigeonholed. I believe that if the real end-product of the Radcliffe constitution was a system whereby Greeks domiciled in Cyprus could enjoy Greek and British nationality together, and Turks correspondingly, there would be an inducement to them to live in Cyprus and make it one of the most flourishing places on the globe. The whole project of trying to unite with national states elsewhere would disappear, and we should see a vision of the Expanding Commonwealth taking place before our very eyes. That is my dream. We should not fix our eyes exclusively to the issue whether a particular linguistic, cultural or religious group should attach itself to a particular national State across the water.
But if the kind of thing I have in mind is to be achieved, surely certain conditions are absolutely essential very soon. The first is that there should be much greater freedom of movement between Greece and Cyprus. That depends on calming down the security situation and easing restrictions. That should be our first goal. It is perfectly certain that that cannot be accomplished unless we make it abundantly plain that we have no intention whatever of abandoning our sovereignty over Cyprus, let alone turn part of the realm of our Sovereign over to some international alliance which may evaporate altogether. In addition, it is essential that we should aim at an emphatic reaffirmation, by the three Powers most closely concerned, of the Treaty of Lausanne.
I have said that no doubt it will be denied that there is any American pressure in this matter at all. But let us face it. The partition of Palestine—and we have Ernie Bevin's word for it in effect—was the work at the end of the day of the Americans. The Americans got us out of Abadan. The Americans got us out of Egypt in 1954. The Americans stopped us when we tried to go back last autumn. For better or worse, it was they who stopped us. The Americans got us out of Port Said. The Americans got the Royal Navy into civvies, and even when we were humiliated to that extent, the Americans got the Royal Navy sent away from Suez. It is obvious that the Americans stand behind the claims of Saudi Arabia in regard to the Buraimi Oasis.
In January my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister broadcast to this country words that came as a balm and a solace when he said:
We won't be parted from the Americans but we won't be satellites.
If there is any kind of arrangement now in Cyprus that means our abdication, even if it is behind an elegant N.A.T.O. facade, it will be said up and down this country, whether we like it or not, that we have become an American satellite and submitted to their pressure.
A small number of us recently declined the party whip because we were unable any further to support our Government's foreign policy in the Middle East. We found it going from bad to worse, and there seemed to be no sticking point. At

the moment it seems to be in the process of reformulation. But in the event of my hon. Friends and myself supporting the Government tonight in the Division Lobby, I hope they will not conclude from this that we mean to give them carte blanche to go ahead with this N.A.T.O. project or with partition.
We will not back abdication, even if it is wrapped up in a sort of N.A.T.O. mantle. We shall not back a surrender of the Queen's sovereignty, least of all to a transient military alliance. We shall not back exposing loyal Government servants in Cyprus to the vengeance of others. We shall not back trusting others to defend our commercial sea lanes. We believe that just as Abadan was the signal for Suez so Suez has been the signal for Cyprus, and if we quit Cyprus, we quit the Mediterranean, and no amount of sterling will hold Malta against the lure of the dollar.
We believe in general that the Welfare State cannot survive, nor can inflation be mastered, if our trade routes are in jeopardy and if we recoil from defending them. Above all we believe in the words of the Prime Minister at a meeting in the Central Hall, Westminster, on 29th September, 1949:
A great nation should be like the eagle; it should be able to look, without flinching, into the sun, to see and recognise the truth; to fix the goal; and then to go straight towards it, without those crooked turns and devious routes so dear to timid souls.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Until the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), to which we have just listened, I had thought there was very much in the speeches from the other side of the Committee to which those of us on this side would assent, particularly the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot), who seemed to be tackling the subject from his usual wise angle, except for certain things which he said about partition. Although there have been certain murmurings from the more fusty recesses of the Tory back benches, it was not until now that we have been treated by the hon. Member for Lanark to the authentic voices of Lord North and George III.
There was one thing which the hon. Member for Lanark said with which I


agreed, and that was that the part of the world we are discussing today is one which goes in for atrocity-mongering to a very large extent. We all understand that this is so. I will not labour the atrocity point because I know no details, apart from what I have heard today, but having had a very great shock as a young Member of the House of Commons, when I was in my middle twenties, of hearing a Government Department white-washing something that was wrong, of which I was convinced I had given them proof, I am always bitterly suspicious when I hear Government spokesmen plausibly denying at all costs, and refusing inquiry into, allegations of atrocities or misconduct on the part of Government servants.
I do not hold myself out to be an extraordinary person, I am a most ordinary back bencher, but I am impressed if a Government say, "We do not think there is any truth in this, but we will have the best investigation into it that we can." I know that in this case it may be said that terrorism in Cyprus may prevent a proper investigation. Well, they have quoted from their own investigation already and so it seems to me that the Government have taken that argument away from themselves.
I want the Government to make the best investigation they can. It is open to the person in charge of the investigation to say, "I was not able to investigate this because of terrorism in the island"; but at least the Government should not hide behind that argument. An investigation should be made as soon as possible in order to clear our good name. Not one of my hon. Friends says that he believes these allegations: but they say these things are being said, they are being believed. In those circumstances I feel that the least the Government can do is to set up the best inquiry possible, in spite of all the obvious difficulties in the way of it, which we fully understand.
I submit that the gravamen of the charge made by us on this side of the Committee against the Government about Cyprus is that although they may have made little nibblings here and there, they have done nothing substantial to solve the problem of Cyprus, at any rate since the release of the Archbishop. I submit that it is not open to the Government, particularly to the Colonial Secretary, to

come down to the House of Commons with a song in his heart, or even with a grin on his face, about Cyprus.
The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the time when in a Committee room upstairs the Irish party was meeting because of the Parnell divorce. The meeting was being held in Committee Room 14 and Parnell was to meet his followers. It was the first time after the bombshell had dropped upon them all. After the meeting Tim Healey was asked, "What did the chief look like?" He replied, "Ah, the chief looked as though it was we who had committed the adultery." That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary looks like when he conies here. He looks as if we had created the mess in Cyprus, whereas he has been in charge all this time and things had been growing steadily worse.
Did the right hon. Gentleman not say a few years ago that terrorism was on the point of stopping, yet it went on and on? Then there was the temporary suspension of violence when the E.O.K.A. people said that it was only temporary and they were waiting to see what the Government would do about it, and the Government did practically nothing. So violence broke out again. Now we have another uneasy truce. We are anxious that this opportunity shall not be lost, and that something shall be done now to ensure that the parties are brought together. By parties I am thinking not only of Archbishop Makarios but of the Turkish Cypriots too.
In spite of the previous speech, I want to know why the Government are hanging on to Cyprus. We have heard the opinion of the hon. Gentleman. As far as I can see, he wants to buy oil with bombs. He wants to have a Cyprus base in order to bomb the countries of the Middle East into giving us oil. That is a lovely idea, I suppose, from the point of view of the century he represents—

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I am always delighted to remind the hon. Gentleman of earlier centuries, but all I was trying to say—perhaps I did not make it clear—was that if we are to protect our sea lanes we must have places from which to protect them.

Mr. Mallalieu: I want to know why the Government are hanging on to


Cyprus. Is it to get oil out of the Middle East or, to put it euphemistically, to protect our sea lanes?

Mr. Profumo: I apologise for interrupting, but I am anxious to follow the hon. Gentleman. In asking that question is he suggesting that if this matter were left to him he would cede Cyprus at once? Is he chastising the Government for hanging on to Cyprus? I do not understand the reason for the question.

Mr. Mallalieu: I have asked a question and have been given no answer. I have been answered by another question, which I will myself answer. Of course not. No one from this side of the Committee has suggested, certainly no one from our Front Bench, that we would immediately cede Cyprus. I will come in a moment to what we would do with Cyprus. Indeed, that has already been stated in far better language than I could use.
There seems to be a suggestion coming from the Tory back benches that the object is to protect our sea lanes and to enable us to bomb people into giving us oil. I should like to know the Government's attitude towards that. Do they think we can bomb people into giving us oil? It would be interesting to hear their views. According to the hon. Member for Lanark, we must have a base to protect our sea lanes. There was a time when we could have had a base in the Mediterranean, in a staunch, friendly country—Israel. That would have prevented all this trouble coming to the Middle East and would have kept the peace there. However, the opportunity was thrown aside by the Government. We have had the Suez fiasco, and it is now somewhat doubtful whether Israel would regard us with favour as an ally.
I want the Government to say what interest we have in Cyprus which is not also a N.A.T.O. interest. Surely the Suez affair has shown that the Cyprus base is no good for protecting our oil or anything else. Let us hear from the Government what they hope to get by remaining in Cyprus. I submit there are no interests there which are purely British interests. There are N.A.T.O. interests. In the light of the castigation of international bodies and the evident glee shown on the Tory benches when someone suggested that N.A.T.O. or U.N. would be short-lived,

I want to know what the Government think about the suggestions made from the Tory back benches.
Ought we not to hand over our interests to this extent, and say that we are not desirous of keeping the sovereignty over Cyprus unless N.A.T.O. wants us to? I should be prepared to do that. The Under-Secretary looks puzzled. What is the difficulty in N.A.T.O. giving an expression of view that it might be a good thing if we gave up the sovereignty and handed it over to an international body?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think I am looking puzzled. I am sorry if my face gives that impression. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that if N.A.T.O. said that it did not want us to continue our sovereignty we should give it up without being certain that what happened after that was something with which we could honour the obligations that we have to the people of Cyprus?

Mr. Mallalieu: No one would ever say that we could be certain of anything in this world, but we could take steps to make it reasonably possible to achieve what we want to achieve in Cyprus, which is fairness for majorities and minorities. That could be achieved in a number of ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) suggested one way. Handing over control to N.A.T.O. is another way. There might be a condominium between us and Greece or between us, Greece and Turkey. These things should be the subject of talks, but we are not having any talks. I do not believe that this is such an intractable problem as some people make out. If the parties were approached together, all these possible solutions could be discussed.
I am not one to ignore the rights of the Turks in this matter. Also, I am not thinking only of the Turks in Cyprus. We cannot look at Cyprus on its own; it is part of the frontier between Islam and Christendom, and has been a cockpit for hundreds of years. We cannot look at one part and say that there shall be complete and absolute self-determination there. I have studied self-determination as well as I can, and I believe that the principle, rightly expressed, is that any people ought to have a right to self-determination provided that they can exercise that right without being an undue nuisance to their neighbours. If they cannot exercise that right without putting


the whole area into a turmoil, that is a case where, in the interests of the peace of the world, self-determination should not be granted. I am not saying that that is so in this case, but it is the sort of question that one may have to discuss very seriously. I certainly would not say that the Turks in Turkey or the Cypriot Turks have no rights in the Cyprus question; they have every right to be consulted, just as the Government have consulted them in the past.
What I am really interested in is that there should be discussions. As the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove said, our name has been dragged through the mud. It is continuing to be dragged through the mud, and people will level accusations against us as long as it can be said with any plausibility that we exercise imperialistic rights in Cyprus to which we are no longer entitled. I am anxious that the Government should lose no opportunity now of getting the parties together before our name is further besmirched.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: There was much in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) which surely all of my hon. Friends, even if they do not go all the way with him, could well admire, but in his introductory remarks he made a point purely on a procedure matter of timing with which I must differ. He said he welcomed the debate now. It was with a feeling of depression that I heard there was to be another Cyprus debate. This was not because I feared that the Government would suffer in the debate. It was because experience shows that whenever hon. Members opposite—I am not denying their honesty of purpose—make speeches here which are taken in Greece to indicate that if and when the Labour Party returns to power there will be Enosis or self-determination of a sort leading to Enosis, it makes the Greeks more demanding and more recalcitrant than ever. It also makes the Turks, in their turn, even more recalcitrant and more difficult for our Government to deal with.
The problem of Cyprus is already difficult enough for many reasons arising out of geographical and historical causes, but those difficulties have been added to time after time by expressions of view by the Opposition which have encouraged the

Greeks not to help to make a settlement during the lifetime of the present Administration.

Mr. Callaghan: I suppose the hon. Member is proceeding on the assumption that if he and his hon. Friends say something often enough it is bound to be true. If he had been present this afternoon he would have heard—he could also have heard it in previous debates; it was stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) as long ago as 1954, before this trouble broke out—what the policy of the Labour Party is. The hon. Gentleman ought to know it quite well by now. I ask him to desist from repeating this falsehood.

Mr. Bennett: I decline to desist. I was about to say that almost the only exception was part of the hon. Member's speech today. I have been here since the beginning of the debate except for one short interval. I decline to withdraw a single word of what I have said, that it is widely believed among the Greeks—no hon. Member opposite can deny this—that their chances of obtaining Enosis or self-determination of a sort leading to Enosis will be improved on the return of a Socialist Government here.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman says that there is much more prospect of Cyprus being given self-determination under a Labour Government than under a Tory Government. I cannot dispute that in view of the rate of progress which the present Government are making, but that is an entirely different proposition.

Mr. Bennett: It is exactly the proposition that I am making. I have spoken of self-determination of a sort leading to Enosis and obviously I do not think that would give the Turkish element an equal right of self-determination with the Greek element. It may be awkward for hon. Members opposite to accept this, but it is on record that it is widely believed in Greece and among Greek-Cypriot circles that the return to power of the party opposite will lead to an application of self-determination leading to Enosis much more quickly than the Greek-Cypriots can hope to obtain under the present administration.

Mr. James Johnson: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I have already given way twice on this point. The hon. Member


will have an opportunity to speak later. He speaks quite frequently. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) may not like what is being said—

An Hon. Member: He could not care less.

Mr. Bennett: In that case, I suggest that the hon. Member keeps quiet and permits me to continue my speech.
From start to finish this has been one of the problems which has bedevilled the prospects of any settlement of this situation. We have heard from the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that in 1947 there was already a report from the Chiefs of Staff to the effect that Cyprus was useless as a military base for our purposes. Why, in that case, did the party opposite four years later formally decline to consider any sort of negotiated settlement with Greece about Cyprus? We have been bitterly criticised for obduracy, but four years after that damning report the then Government, now Her Majesty's Opposition, were sending notes to Greece saying that in no circumstances whatever would they discuss a change of sovereignty for Cyprus and saying that Cyprus must remain under the British Crown. That attitude was maintained until hon. Members opposite went into opposition, since when they have hounded the Government for a rapid application of self-determination to Cyprus.
We have not yet been told what form this self-determination will take, and I hope that the Opposition will be specific about that. Can it be definitely asserted that Her Majesty's Opposition believe that when self-determination comes it will be on an over-all basis and not on a racial basis with equal opportunities for Turkish and Greek Cypriots? We are entitled to know the answer to that question.
Some hon. Members opposite have said that they are in favour of over-all self-determination, not permitting the Turkish minority to take steps which might lead to partition. They have said that in those circumstances the United Kingdom ought to give minority safeguard guarantees. I ask hon. Members opposite who advocate that what value safeguarding guarantees for the Turkish minority can be once we have abdicated our sovereignty and

Enosis has taken place so that the island is part of Greece? Do they suggest that in the breach of such guarantees we should return by force to safeguard the Turkish minority? If not, what possible value would a British guarantee be when we were no longer in a position to enforce it.
I must confess that the more one considers the problem the more one appreciates that if ultimately there is self-determination leading to partition there is a grave danger of racial strife and a grave danger of a Greco-Turkish war. On the other hand, one appreciates that if one permits or encourages self-determination on an over-all basis, without giving opportunities for self-determination to the Turkish minority, one is also asking for a Greco-Turkish war.
I warn hon. Members opposite, with all the sincerity in my heart, that such a policy of overall self-determination would be unacceptable to Turkey, whatever guarantees might be offered by the Greek-Cypriot majority. That is not exaggerating the position. To advocate a policy which is absolutely unacceptable to one of the two other Powers concerned is to be totally unrealistic. In those circumstances, although partition may one day be the only one of these grim alternatives which will be acceptable, I still hope that, if passions are allowed to die down and if this matter does not increasingly become part of the cockpit of British politics, it may be possible to return to some sort of status quo with the acceptance of the new constitutional proposals.
Those proposals are not final and delimited. It is easy to criticise and not so easy to make constructive suggestions, but the Radcliffe proposals at least provide a basis. At the same time, I am sure that they will not satisfy either the Greeks or the Turks unless they include the ultimate safeguards which both countries desire. If those proposals are to be successful too, I feel we will have to go considerably further towards allaying nationalist fears by reverting to some earlier ideas, too soon dispelled, of dual citizenship and an executive council representing British Greek and Turkish interests.
In this way, it might be possible, if the two parties can be induced to appreciate where a continuation of the


present struggle will lead, for British sovereignty to continue, with Turkish or Greek influence exercised where those interests are concerned. That seems to be one of the only possible solutions. Without such a solution, present circumstances are bound to lead sooner or later to internecine strife between the Turkish and Greek-Cypriots, whether or not there is partition. At the moment, I do not see any solution other than a continuation of the British position with greater Greek and Turkish representation at executive, and more local representation at lower political levels.
At the same time, even that proposal does not stand much chance of success if the Turks believe that in two, three or four years' time there may be a change of policy with self-determination permitted or encouraged on an over-all basis and leading to Enosis. With that idea and those considerations in mind, while Hey Majesty's Government will perforce have to continue with the present policy of British sovereignty over the island, they should make it unequivocally clear, not only in the House of Commons, but in a binding international obligation to the Turks, that if and when self-determination should become necessary and Britain has to abdicate responsibility, it will be on a basis which will provide the Turks with an opportunity for self-determination of their future equal to that being offered to the Greeks.

Mr. Stan Awbery: Does not self-determination mean that the people themselves decide how they will be governed?

Mr. Bennett: Of course it means how they will be governed, but at what point is it decided who decides who is to be governed by whom? Unfortunately, there are two racial and religious elements in the island—as in Ireland there are two religious elements—and that difficulty cannot be resolved merely by overall self-determination. It just is not applicable in the present circumstances to imagine that the Turkish minority or the Turkish Government are prepared to accept the idea of self-determination for the island as a whole leading to Enosis. Anybody who goes to Turkey and talks to Turks must realise that that is an absolutely plain fact and a reality with which we have to deal today.
We have heard a good deal about the needs of the Greeks, the Turks and the Cypriots. I reiterate that we should recall, especially at this time, what are our own British interests. It was rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) that in thinking of a solution we should not entirely neglect to consider essentially British interests, military, strategic or economic; otherwise we shall have to abdicate our whole position as a leading Power—and that is not merely a jingoist term; it is because, we are a leading Power that we can maintain our trading communications across the world and maintain our standard of living. When considering the solution of the Cyprus problem, therefore, it is essential for hon. Members on both sides to dwell a little upon purely British interests.
I do not pretend to be a military strategist. I do not know what are our strategic needs in the Island. But I say that when the Government are clarifying our strategic interests and the way in which to safeguard them they should not put forward reasons on any other basis but the absolute truth of our strategic needs. They should not, for instance, be misguided by the argument which is so often heard, that because the Suez episode was in some respects a failure and that Cyprus was not successful then from a military standpoint, it is necessarily of no military use. It may well be that the preparations in regard to Suez were not such as to equip the Cyprus base for the purpose for which it was ultimately used. But do not let us think that because it was not successful before, it could not be successful in the future.
When I hear talk about moving our base to East Africa I become somewhat nervous. I was looking up my correspondence only this afternoon and I found that I wrote to the Ministers concerned four years ago, pleading the case for a base in East Africa and much less dependence upon Cyprus. I put forward what I thought to be an awful lot of convincing arguments why it would be better for us to centre our military interests in East Africa and to cut down in Cyprus and elsewhere. I received long and authoritative letters from Her Majesty's Ministers giving an awful lot of good reasons why it was utterly impossible to consider a base in East Africa,


and why we must stick to Cyprus. If Her Majestys' Government go into reverse and take up what, in all humility, I may call the Bennett position of four years ago, I hope that they will give me some convincing reasons for doing so, otherwise I shall not know whether to believe what they said four years ago or what they are saying now.
In my few remarks I have deliberately tried not to make matters more difficult. I must ask hon. Members opposite to believe that if, even unwittingly, they give the impression in Athens, or to Archbishop Makarios, that somehow or other the Greek Cypriots and Greece will get a better deal under a Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—at the expense of the Turkish minority and the Turkish Government, they will make it almost impossible for my right hon. Friend to carry on any sort of successful negotiation to settle this dispute. I should have thought that that was a matter which was above all party considerations, and that we were all determined to bring this sorry chapter to a happier conclusion as soon as possible.

8.33 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I should like first to associate myself with the remarks which the Under-Secretary of State made, regretting the illness of Sir John Harding. Whatever may be our disagreements, we all appreciate that he has been doing a difficult job, under a very great strain, and we are sorry that now that he has come to London for important talks he has been taken ill. I did not feel that the Under-Secretary was quite justified in the implied reproof which he administered to the Opposition about the timing of the debate. It was hinted that had we postponed the debate a little longer the Government might have had something more to say.
I have been a member of the House for only just over three years, but I have tried to follow the Cyprus debates very closely. For one reason, there are in my constituency many Cypriots who have made their homes in London. I have been to Cyprus; it is a country which I know and love. I have therefore followed these debates very closely. Rereading them, time after time I find that the Opposition have been asked by the Government not to press them and not to

hurry them, because something was just at a delicate point of negotiation, or something was just about to happen.
In fact, we have been thanked and congratulated by the Colonial Secretary for our attitude. Even I have been congratulated by the right hon. Gentleman for my moderation on one occasion in opening a debate in the House. I certainly do not think that the Government have any right to complain about the use we have made of our time today.
During the three years in which I have followed the debates in the House—three years during which the present Government have been in complete control of the situation—what has been happening in Cyprus? To begin with, 337 people have been killed and over 1,000 wounded, some of them maimed for life. I remember that when I first took part in the debates in this House there was no violence and no bloodshed in Cyprus. The Government could not say, "There must be law and order," or "We must deal with E.O.K.A. first before we can talk about the new constitution". At that time, the Cypriots were asking peaceably for their rights, as they saw them, and no progress was made. Now we have a tragically changed situation.
I was in Cyprus before the emergency began, and I have been there since. As one who has witnessed the dramatic tragedy of the change in the situation in that island, I cannot but feel deep grief and regret. It is absolutely useless now for hon. Members opposite to talk about the possibility of self-determination taking any other form than Enosis. Nothing has done more to increase the power of the Enosis movement in Cyprus than the policy of the present Conservative Government. Nothing has done more to make talk of dual citizenship absolutely unacceptable and impossible. I have seen an island which was populated by easy-going friendly, essentially pro-British people changed in this short time to an island where Britain has lost innumerable friendships, has lost respect, and where people have lost faith in our good intentions. I think that is a great tragedy.
We have spent a considerable time in Committee today trying to deal with some of the more dramatic charges which have been made concerning the atrocity allegations, and I shall not take up any time


on that subject. I should, however, like to remind the Committee just a little of what this has meant to the ordinary people of Cyprus.
It is not merely a question of those cases which have been high-lighted in debate which demand our attention. We should remember the way in which the emergency has completely distorted the ordinary, everyday life of the people. One thousand of them are still in detention camps without trial. Let us not forget that these are not E.O.K.A. terrorists who have been caught and charged with offences. They are men and women who have not been brought to justice. What has happened to their families? When one talks to their wives and children one realises the sudden poverty into which they have been plunged by the fact that the breadwinners have been put behind barbed wire. Then there is not enough to eat, and all sorts of family problems arise. What effect does that have on the Cypriot attitude to Britain?
We have closed their schools. Fortunately now that policy has been dropped and all the schools are open. We have been responsible for the policy of judicial whipping of children. That brutality has now been stopped, but do not let us think that it has been forgotten; it will never be forgotten. The fact is that in the twentieth century we cannot, without an element of totalitarianism, hold down a country against the will of the people who live in it. We in this country do not like being associated with a totalitarian regime. Whatever inquiries are made into the allegations, we shall have to face the basic facts of the situation, which is that we are trying to govern a people against their will. These people have seen money spent like water on the emergency. They have seen £7,500,000 spent at a time when money is desperately needed in Cyprus t when their vineyards are parched for want of irrigation and the hills flattened by erosion; when there is a complete lack of higher education, so that most of the young men and women turn automatically to Athens because that is the place where they can get the higher education which they need and which so many of them desire.
There is one point to which I should like an answer regarding the allegations and the findings of the Human Rights

Sub-Committee of the Council of Europe. Nothing is more serious in the whole of this sorry story than the bad relationship of this country with other member countries, both of the United Nations and the Council of Europe. It is a shameful thing that we, who stand for the most precious values of civilisation, should have to be arraigned by the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Council of Europe because of our behaviour in Cyprus. That Committee has wound up its deliberations and has decided to ask the Government to allow it to send an investigation team to Cyprus. The Governor has refused, and the Colonial Secretary has supported that refusal, to allow a judicial inquiry such as has been asked for. We should know what reply the Government propose to send to the Council of Europe.
If we are saying to the Council of Europe that we will not accept its request, I cannot see what the Government are hoping for in this really tragic situation. Very soon after the emergency the Government sent a soldier to act as Governor. Later our hopes were raised because of their new endeavours—they sent a judge, and he came back. Now we must press the Government about their intentions for the future. In my submission it is absolutely unfair for the Colonial Secretary to suggest that it is impossible, or that Archbishop Makarios has made it impossible, for talks with him to take place. There is nobody else with whom we can talk. I have said before, and I repeat tonight, that I am the last person to want Archbishop Makarios to be the only person engaged in such talks. I have suggested—the suggestion has never been dealt with seriously by the Minister—that a team from Cyprus might be created in which the six mayors of the main towns, who are elected by the people, should be members. At the moment they happen to be three Communists and three Nationalists. They could form the nucleus of such a team.
It is easy to find difficulties. It is easy for the Colonial Secretary to say that Archbishop Makarios has laid down impossible conditions. Surely it is the job of statesmen so to deal with the difficulties that the parties are brought together. One cannot help but feel that if the will existed to get these talks going the talks would start. Why cannot the Arhcbishop and other Cypriots be invited to London


without our laying down, or allowing them to lay down, in detail what should be the procedure? Surely the first thing is to get the people together and to get the talks going. The fact that there has been a complete failure to achieve this is the greatest of the indictments we must bring against the Government tonight.
I, with others of my hon. Friends, wonder what purpose was served by exiling the Archbishop. I know Cyprus fairly well, and so far as I can see the main thing achieved by exiling the Archbishop has been to give him an even bigger halo and to put him upon an even higher throne. He is, in fact, now in the strongest position that he has ever been in the whole of his archbishopric. There is now, because of the policy of the Government, nobody who stands the chance of competing with him in authority or prestige. The Archbishop has been greatly strengthened by the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and must be regarded as acceptable as representative of the Cypriot people.
As far as the Turkish Cypriots are concerned, it is interesting to note that one hears much more about racial strife in this Committee than in Cyprus. I wish a little more were said in the House of Commons about the hundreds of years during which Turks and Greek Cypriots have rubbed along together. I have seen in Paphos a district commissioner, a Turk, working with an assistant commissioner, a Greek, and with a mixed staff, all doing a difficult job well. I have dined in the house of a Greek Cypriot with Turkish guests on one hand and Greek guests on the other. Less said here about strife between them would mean that the position in Cyprus would become much quieter.
Since the emergency and since the present Government have been in power there has been a deterioration of racial relationships inside Cyprus which is quite unnecessary, and is not borne out by historical experience. The Government have created some kind of Frankenstein about the Turks, and now do not know what to do about it. In the process of talks with the Archbishop and other Greek Cypriots provision must be made for consultations with Turkish Cypriots. We should also have to bring in consultation with the United Nations and ask its help in guaranteeing minority rights to the Turks. That must be done.
We have heard in the Committee today the suggestion that a constitution should be imposed upon Cyprus. Previously the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that no constitution should be imposed. I hope that tonight we shall maintain that position because it is one of the few points on which he is absolutely right. A constitution cannot be imposed upon a people. The Government must work out some kind of plan, according to the shape that the future must take.
The present Governor of Cyprus has had to carry out very difficult tasks and impossible policies. I hope that the Government will see that the time is now over-ripe for demilitarising the situation in Cyprus. We are in a situation which must be dealt with politically. I say, without any reflection on the personal achievements of Sir John Harding, that it is essential that a new kind of Governor be appointed. It will be fair, because the Governor previous to him was asked to leave so that a military Governor might be brought in to deal with the military situation. Now it should be possible for the Government to make a further change.
My time remaining to speak is very short. I hope that, although rights of reprieve are entirely a matter for the Governor, the Government will use their influence to see that no more executions are carried out in Cyprus under the emergency regulations. Nothing will be more embittering and dangerous to a long-term settlement than further executions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the request of the Council of Europe for members of an inquiry to go to Cyprus in order that the good name of those concerned may be cleared, and that, if there are people who are at fault, they can be dealt with in a fair and open way. Thirdly, I hope that Archbishop Makarios's last letter, which was sent through Mr. Rossides, will be answered quickly and affirmatively and that talks will be started on this difficult subject. I do not believe that any harm has ever been done by talking. We are now in a situation where we cannot afford not to hold those talks.

8.51 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: We hold this debate as the Summer Recess approaches. Our object in asking for a


debate on Cyprus at this time is once again to endeavour to press the Government to give some indication that they have a policy for Cyprus.
We last debated Cyprus on 19th February, when we in the Opposition pressed the Secretary of State to bring Archbishop Makarios back into negotiations. Violence was then in full swing and the growth of communal tension was increasing daily, and we pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman that these things could not be brought to an end as long as the Archbishop remained in detention in the Seychelles.
The right hon. Gentleman accepted our advice. We were delighted when he announced on 20th March that the leader of the E.O.K.A. organisation had said that operations of violence would be suspended if the Archbishop were brought back, and we were also delighted when the right hon. Gentleman said that a statement, which he did not accept as fully satisfactory from his point of view, had been issued by the Archbishop and that orders had been issued in consequence to bring him back from detention in the Seychelles. We thought that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right, and we welcomed his decision, when he informed us on the same occasion that the Government had accepted the offer of Lord Ismay to act for the purposes of conciliation on the international plain between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece in regard to Cyprus.
In giving him that advice to bring back the Archbishop—advice which he at long last accepted—we did not mean to advise that, having brought the Archbishop back, he should do no more in the matter. That was not the object of our advice. We advised him to bring back the Archbishop in order that progress might be possible by means of conversations between the people of Cyprus in the person of the Archbishop, who was apparently the only person in a position to represent them, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of the United Kingdom. In welcoming the Government's decision to accept the good offices of Lord Ismay, we made it perfectly clear that this should not be treated as a substitution for direct conversations between Her Majesty's Government and

the people of Cyprus about the future constitution of Cyprus.
From that day to this, literally no progress has been made. The situation when the Archbishop came back and when violence ceased—and there has been no recurrence—seemed to have been transformed in the course of a few days, and I think we all had hopes, certainly on this side of the Committee and, I believe, all over the country, that the occasion had arrived for some real progress towards a solution of this desperate problem in Cyprus—a solution which at long last could put an end to a situation of growing danger, growing tension and growing emergency.
That was in March. From that day to this, as I have said, there has been no violence, but the Government have sat back in a state of complete and absolute paralysis, without taking a single step forward along the march of progress. From the Opposition benches, week in and week out, we pressed the Government by Parliamentary Question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Under-Secretary of State, asking them what steps they were taking. Every Question was met by the usual stonewall Answer. Weeks went by and, naturally, the anxieties of hon. Members on this side grew, as we suspected that, once again, the right hon. Gentleman was going to muff an opportunity.
On 8th May, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him whether he was prepared to take steps to invite representatives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to this country with a view to engaging in round-table conversations in order to formulate some plan of future action. I think that I really ought to read, to cite from HANSARD, the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave. He obviously knows it. It probably burns into his conscience—I hope that it does.
This was some eight or nine weeks after the Archbishop had come back, and when nothing had happened at the end of that period what he said was this:
We are always ready to receive views on the Radcliffe constitutional proposals.
That did not carry the matter very much further. He went on to say:
If there are indications of a general desire on the part of representative Greek and


Turkish Cypriots to discuss them in a constructive spirit, we shall be in a better position to consider the timing of such an invitation.
Anything nearer to a truism it is difficult to conceive. Naturally, if the Greeks and Turks were clamouring to come here, the right hon. Gentleman would be in quite a good position to decide when he would issue an invitation. He went on to conclude this momentous Answer, following a supplementary from my hon. Friend, by saying:
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we are quite ready to receive any comments which anyone may care to make on the Radcliffe proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 957–8.]
What a masterpiece!

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I went on precedent provided by my predecessors in a number of fields before I composed that Answer.

Sir F. Soskice: I wish that he would adapt the precedent to the actual situation that he is considering. He was dealing with a situation where urgent action was required, and if he applied a precedent appropriate to other circumstances that is really very little excuse. If that really expresses his attitude of mind he really is beyond praying for. Really, that sort of language might represent the attitude of mind of a mid-Victorian debutante waiting to be invited to go to her first dance. It reads like Mrs. Gaskell. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that we are in 1957—not in 1857—grappling with a desperate problem; with a problem which, at any moment, might again break into flame.
We are entitled to expect something better from the right hon. Gentleman. His policy, his own administration has brought about the present situation. He is not entitled just to lie back and do nothing. He should go out and make the running. I would say to him: if he really insists on lying flat on his back and waiting till some friendly guiding hand comes to point the, solution to him, why, before we know where we are we shall be right back in a fresh campaign of violence and the whole thing will have broken out into flames once more.
What is the position in Cyprus today? There is a kind of uneasy calm. Still over a thousand people are detained behind barbed wire, no charge having been made against them, and the right

hon. Gentleman, when pressed, says that he can give no kind of indication as to when they will come out. Some of the more stringent of the emergency regulations have been cancelled. But our troops are still there. I gather from The Times today that they are at long last engaged in taking down the barbed wire entanglements which surround the old Venetian city of Nicosia. Everybody is glad to know that.
The Times correspondent says:
The opinion of leading Greek Cypriots is that there is little prospect of a solution so long as there is military administration in the island and so long as the British Government refuses to meet Archbishop Makarios.
There is an uneasy calm, everybody is waiting, nothing is happening; and amongst the people who are waiting, the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary are waiting as well—Heaven knows for what.
Today the Under-Secretary made what I thought was a quite masterly speech, if I may be allowed to say so. He spent half an hour saying precisely nothing in the most eloquent terms. It was an achievement which all Ministers who are pledged to inaction may well envy. Having delivered himself of the arguments which he thought proper to deploy, he led to a momentous conclusion, which I think again it is fitting to repeat as marking the complete bankruptcy of the 'Government's policy. This was the weighty sentiment to which, at the end of his formidable address, the hon. Gentleman arrived. He put it in these words, if I got them down correctly, and I hope he will forgive me if I did not. I certainly got the sense of them. This is the present position after all these months of waiting in this tense situation: "The Government are again looking at the possibility of taking some further initiative."
Meanwhile, the Archbishop did take an initiative. On 28th May, the Archbishop addressed a letter to the Prime Minister asking for what he described as bilateral conversations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East pointed out, unfortunately the Government misunderstood him and did not take the trouble to find out what he meant, and under the misapprehension so created, wrote back in the name of the Government on 30th May declining all further conversations.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are interested will find the terms of that communication from Her Majesty's Government set out in the issue of HANSARD of 3rd June of this year, and I would recommend them to read it. It is all in keeping with the attitude which has characterised the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State throughout the tragic series of events which we are discussing this evening. I do not think I can ever remember a more stuffy and unconstructive Departmental composition. As a piece of dialectic, no doubt, it is impeccable, but really the right hon. Gentleman should understand that in presentday circumstances, something more is required. So the days go by, the weeks go by, and nothing happens. The only thing that we read of as happening is that the Archbishop with the Prime Minister of Greece, sits down, so we read today, to compose a fresh appeal to the United Nations against Her Majesty's Government.
That is the reason we have thought it necessary to bring this matter again before the Committee. We thought that it would be quite wrong, a dereliction of duty on the part of the Opposition, to let three months go by without making at least one more endeavour at long last to extract from the Government some indication of some purpose, some plan, some way, which they had conceived of going further along the path of some kind of a solution—and all we got tonight from the Under-Secretary of State, as the exordium of his remarkable discourse, was a frank confession that he had nothing whatever to say. That, I suppose, in different, perhaps rather more robust, language will be repeated by the right hon. Gentleman when I sit down.
That is what I would say as the first part of my complaint against the Government. We have often in the past had occasion to reproach the right hon. Gentleman for what we thought were violent and wrong-headed decisions, such as the deportation of the Archbishop, but it really is, I think, the first time that we have had to complain against him that he has, as it were, retreated into an ice box and frozen himself up. I hope that he will unfreeze himself, because if he does not, the heat of the situation,

I can assure him, which is rapidly being generated every day, will pretty soon unfreeze him.
The second thing I would say is what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said before me, that I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put partition right out of his mind as being entirely impracticable, and a resort which, if the Government do use it, is bound to spell unhappiness, discord and friction for years to come. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a realistic view of this matter. We have the impression that he has a kind of genius for letting a situation slide from one difficulty to another. First, it was the continuance of violence. Now violence has come to an end. Then he erects a kind of bogy, as we think—this bogy of partition.
This people has lived for centuries in amity in Cyprus. No doubt the policy of the Government has given rise to intercommunal tension on a very serious scale; but to think it is practicable to take these people, who live in houses next door to one another, side by side in the villages and in the towns, who exchange hospitality and intermarry among themselves, to take them and by some transfer of population on a large scale, separate them into different communities, is really a proposal which is quite unthinkable and cannot possibly lead to any long-term solution of the problem of Cyprus. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put it entirely out of his mind. It is utterly unrealistic.
It is something which the Government have thought up only in the last few months. When they first approached this problem I do not think they had the question of partition in their minds at all. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he saw Archbishop Makarios, as he announced, on 5th March last year, and at long last, having gone back on the Government's previous attitude, agreed with Archbishop Makarios that self-determination was a thing which was not out of the question, although it was not at the time practicable, when he said that to Archbishop Makarios and when the Archbishop raised the question about the amnesty and the constitution and the Greek majority and so on, did the right hon. Gentleman—I would ask him to answer this question frankly when he replies to the debate: it would at least give


him something to say—then have in his mind self-determination in the form of partition?
I do not believe for a moment that he did. What I believe happened was that at a later stage, when he discussed matters with the Turkish representatives, it entered into his mind for the first time that that was the kind of difficulty to be used, which he now uses again, as an excuse for failing to make further progress by the path of discussion with the Archbishop and representatives of Greek and Turkish Cypriots. I think that it is an excuse, and that he has erected it as a sort of bogy to justify himself in sitting back once more and letting the weeks go by. If that is really the right hon. Gentleman's attitude of mind, he is making a very serious mistake. This situation is far too tragic to allow of mistakes of that sort.
Hon. Members ask what we think of partition as part of self-determination. Let us look at the position of the population of this island. I understand that there are 2 per cent. of Maronites and Armenians. If there is to be self-determination, are they also to have partition of their 2 per cent. of the population? The whole thing in unthinkable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will really take a strong line with the Turkish Government, if necessary, and put this thing entirely out of his mind. I hope that he will leave that obstacle out of his mind and realise that the time has come to go forward.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with a very important point, and I want to get quite clear where the Labour Party stands. Is it his view that self-determination should apply only to the Greek Cypriots?

Sir F. Soskice: I am trying to ascertain the policy of the Government on this matter, but I will answer the hon. Gentleman. One must look at this in sensible, concrete, practical terms. We on this side of the Committee have said that it is our policy, and we repeat it, that there should be a period of self-government. During that period, political parties will grow, governmental institutions will develop, Cypriot Ministers will assume responsibility and gain experience of government. At the end of that period it is quite unthinkable that, if they have the interests

of Greek and Turkish Cypriots at heart, they will ever think for a moment in terms of trying to split the country up into divided loyalties and broken friendships and divided lives, for that is what it would mean. I do not think that it is a practical proposition at all. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said to the Minister and appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to put the nonsensical idea of this solution of the problem entirely out of his mind.
I pass from that to the other topic which has been discussed a good deal in the debate. I want to reinforce the plea made to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be some sort of independent inquiry into the allegations of brutality that have been made. If they were simply allegations made by Archbishop Makarios I would agree at once that they were suspect. I do not associate myself, nor do any of my hon. Friends for one moment with the allegations that have been made. The point that we make from this side of the Committee is that they having been made and having gained currency, and having come from people of some considerable authority in the island—I refer, for example, to the former Attorney-General and Chairman of the Bar Council of the Cyprus Bar—and the allegations having spread round the world, it is only a matter of fairness to those against whom these allegations have been made to have their reputations cleared by an outside inquiry.
I accept at once that Sir John Harding detests anything of the sort. He is a brave and honourable soldier to whom that kind of thing would be anathema, but if an inquiry is made inside the military organisation which he commands, and not in public, that does not go far enough to reassure the public mind and the public conscience in this country and in Cyprus and in other countries that these allegations are wholly untrue.
There may be black sheep amongst the security forces—it would look as if there are. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) described what she saw as markings upon a prisoner in Wormwood Scrubs today. She does not identify herself with the allegations. All that she comes here to say, and quite rightly says, because it is her duty to say


it as a responsible Member of Parliament, is that there is something to investigate. For the right hon. Gentleman, with an airy wave of his hand, to say that this is all part of a campaign of vilification of British troops is, and he knows it is, wide of the mark and a wholly unjustifiable attitude from a Member of the present Cabinet.
I would press the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of fairness to the British troops and to the British police—whom I am certain would have nothing to do with that kind of thing—to scotch these allegations, if they are wholly unfounded, by an inquiry in which the outside public will have confidence. There is the case of the inquest to which my hon. Friend referred today. As I understood him, the right hon. Gentleman himself said that one of the prisoners to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock referred had got on his wrist a mark which might have been caused by a rope. If there was a mark of that kind, is not that a matter which should give some disquiet to the right hon. Gentleman, responsible for the administration of his Department?
I ask him, therefore, to think again on this question, and to see whether, as a matter of justice to people who have been impugned, some step should not be taken to subject these allegations to a form of inquiry which would carry general confidence, in order to weed out those few black sheep, if there are black sheep, who have done the kind of Black-and-Tan misdeed which we all dislike, and put an end to the controversy by facing the matter as he ought to face it.
In a leader today the Manchester Guardian said—may I have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman? I want him to understand why we are asking for this debate—that the Opposition had badly timed this debate. The reason the Manchester Guardian gave was that the writer of the article feared that we might be met with what the writer termed the "right hon. Gentleman's elegant evasions". I do not wish to be associated in any way with the choice of the adjective, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to face the Opposition too bleakly with the noun.
The House is going up in the course of a few days. We will not have the opportunity of voicing our opinion for some

three months from today. I do not for a moment go so far as to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of waiting for the gong, but suppose circumstances should conspire against him so that it was impossible for him to make any statement as to Government policy until after the Recess started? Our position would be that we would be unable to criticise it, unable to oppose it, and we might find ourselves back in the autumn in a situation in which violence had broken out again, in which the whole position had deteriorated, in which any hope of contact by negotiation was broken, in which we were back again in the time when the Archbishop was deported.
That is why we feel that it is our duty in the Opposition to exercise the only right we have as Members of Parliament and, as I have said, once again to press the Government to know what they are going to do.
On the admission of the Under-Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman is waiting. On the admission of the Under-Secretary, practically, he has taken no steps, and certainly no step other than that to which I have referred today. I gather that the Government are prepared to consider whether an initiative should be taken at some time. What is the right hon. Gentleman waiting for? How long is he going to wait? He is not talking to the Archbishop. He has sent the Archbishop an uncongenial and uninviting reply, and since then nothing has taken place between them. How long will this go on? Will it be for weeks, or months, or years? If the right hon. Gentleman allows it to go on, does he not realise that the consequence will be that once again the situation will slide back into the chaotic anarchy which marked the period of the full swing of violence of E.O.K.A.?
I gather that there are already rumours that E.O.K.A. may be regrouping, that there have been some threats of a recurrence of violence. It would be a tragedy of the first order if the right hon. Gentleman, hypnotised by some considerations—whether or not divisions in his own party, I do not know; considerations about which we should like to know if he would only tell us about them—into frigid inaction, let slip the opportunity now created at long last by his act of repentance in bringing the Archbishop


back and allowed the whole situation once again to decay.
It is for that reason that I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give us at least some kind of assurance that he has some plan in his mind to put an end to this waiting period. It was for that reason that we asked for the debate. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us at least some measure of satisfaction in response to our inquiries and thus allay our anxieties.

9.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for having sat down at precisely the time at which he had undertaken to do so. For the benefit of those right hon. and hon. Members who were not in the Chamber throughout the whole of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, I would say that it was full of very colourful references to myself, and at the end the very lively pen-picture that emerged was of a Victorian debutante lying on her back in an icebox, a feat of which our grandmothers may have been capable but which would slightly puzzle some of their descendants.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) spoke of what they termed my "elegant evasions", though the right hon. and learned Gentleman was less generous than his hon. Friend and moved to omit the word "elegant". I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman that the Manchester Guardian, from whose columns they said the phrase was extracted, said this morning:
If the Government really means to make an effort and to cut through the Cyprus tangle, we need not begrudge it today some of Mr. Lennox-Boyd's elegant evasions.
Her Majesty's Government are doing something to cut through the Cyprus tangle, but, as I have warned a number of people privately, and as the Under-Secretary has already warned the House publicly, today is inevitably one of the days for elegant evasion.
I cannot allow it to pass unanswered that in recent months we have not taken very considerable initiatives. Here, after all, we are dealing with the destinies of

great nations, and we must allow for these matters to be seriously pondered in at least three capitals. It is out of the question for hasty conclusions to be arrived at; there must be the most mature consideration.
It was on 19th December, 1956, that we took the first of the more recent acts of initiative. On that day, on behalf of the British Government, I announced our acceptance of the proposed constitutional scheme drawn up by Lord Radcliffe. Incidentally, two or three days before that I had taken for a Colonial Secretary the unusual initiative—and I am grateful to my colleagues for allowing me to do so—of going to Turkey and Greece as Colonial Secretary in order to try to avoid any possibly over-hasty adverse comments about the Radcliffe Report being made in either country which might lead to the premature adopting of positions which both Governments might later have cause to regret—a considerable initiative
On 28th March, three months later, I announced that the British Government were prepared to accept the good offices of the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O. in international matters, and I also announced that we were proposing to release Archbishop Makarios forthwith—two very considerable acts of initiative on the international plane. I have no doubt whatever—and a very careful reading of my own correspondence, of newspapers and of the debate in another place on 11th April shows that this view is very widely held, often among people who were previously critical of Her Majesty's Government—that we have taken very considerable initiative and that it is now up to Archbishop Makarios, and others, to show some initiative themselves.
That is not to even things out, as if one initiative here must be followed by some initiative elsewhere, but to demonstrate as far as possible the good intentions of all with whom we have to engage in this matter and to justify us in thinking that a further move on our part could lead to profitable results. As we know, far from taking any such initiative, Archbishop Makarios has concentrated nearly his whole endeavour on inventing and then disseminating charges against the honour of British troops.
Of course, we are having discussions with Sir John Harding which have been unfortunately interrupted by his illness.


Those discussions are designed to help us in an effort to find a further way of getting through the Cyprus tangle. I am glad that a number of tributes have been paid personally to Sir John Harding, both as a soldier and as Governor of Cyprus. On behalf of the British Government, I want to say that we value him as much as an administrator as in previous years we have valued him as a soldier. His wise, generous and tolerant handling of this extremely difficult problem is something which, I know, he will be prepared to leave to the judgment of history.
I have often heard Sir Ronald Storrs, a previous Governor, whom hon. Members like ourselves will know well, frequently described in the most flattering terms by many hon. Members. He was, of course, a well known philhellene and showed his devotion to Greece and to Greek ideals for many years. If anyone reads his masterly book, Orientations, he will see some of the remarks about him in 1931 when there were riots in Cyprus, and made about him in the Athenian Press:
A petty satrap, now Governor only in name, his hands dripping with innocent blood, dared no longer show his face outside the walls of his horse.
I think that Sir John Harding can take it himself. He knows of the trust of the Government and of the people of Great Britain and also knows, whenever they are able freely to express their opinions, of the affections, particularly in the countryside of Cyprus, of the humble people of Cyprus itself.
As I said earlier, I shall not be able today to add very much, if anything, to the statements about policy which I made previously on behalf of the Government in December and at the end of March. However, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) who said in his memorable speech that it is to the big and fundamental issues that we ought to address our minds.
One of the interesting things that has emerged from this debate is the resentment of Opposition speakers when they have been probed upon the question of exactly where they stand on this big issue of self-determination. They asked for the debate, and we are entitled to know where they stand. We are left with no knowledge at all, but with strong

suspicions upon the question whether they themselves, if returned to office, would in fact put into operation, without any qualifications, a form of self-determination which was likely to lead to Enosis.
Throughout their speeches today, with one or two exceptions, it has been shown what remarkably little knowledge they have of the real feelings of the Turkish people and the things which cause them anxiety. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Newport spoke about the protection of minorities, and appeared to think that the only, or the main, consideration of the Turkish people and Government was anxiety for their minorities. Of course they are concerned about their minorities, but far and away more important to them is the proximity of Cyprus to the mainland of Turkey.
Hon. Members opposite, as is also the case with many people outside this country, show a singular inability to understand that it is not the problems of minorities but the historical, geo-political and strategic arguments concerning Cyprus—which the Turks regard as part of Anatolia—which really operate in the minds of the Turkish Government and people, and these great anxieties cannot be dismissed. Every time hon. Members opposite make the kind of speeches that some of them have made today they increase the pressure for partition as being the only safe policy to support, in the eyes of many Turks, and that increase of pressure brings with it a demand to advance the date upon which partition could be brought about.
This is true also of the other disparaging observations which hon. Members opposite let off from time to time—when they are slightly off their guard—about our Turkish allies. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to blackmail by the Turks. Even on the question of policemen the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), although presumably not intending to do so, used words which could later be used to suggest that Turkish policemen might be more likely to commit acts of cruelty than other people.
It is this sort of approach to these problems which is increasing the desire of the Turks to bring things to a head by what they regard as a policy which could be brought into operation fairly quickly and which, once having happened, would


prevent a future Socialist Government in Great Britain from undoing it. I earnestly beg hon. Members opposite to remember that all the time. We find it particularly galling when we think that in all probability, if hon. Members opposite were returned to power, in practice their policy would differ very little from the present policy of Her Majesty's Government. I am quite prepared to await the judgment of history in that respect, although no doubt by the time they are in a position to try I shall be beyond the age when I shall really care.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that we must not allow the Turks or anyone else to prevent the Cypriots from exercising their natural right to self-Government, and to decide their own future. There is no question of Her Majesty's Government allowing anyone to put a veto upon what we consider to be right. This applies to all Governments, allied and others. This is precisely why Her Majesty's Government cannot enter into bilateral conversations with Archbishop Makarios in the way that he demands. It is the Archbishop who is putting a veto upon the right of Turkish Cypriots to be fully consulted.
Hon. Members opposite will no doubt remember that when there was a Socialist Government in 1947 and 1948 and they proposed self-government for Cyprus it was then vetoed by the factions controlled by the Ethnarchy. Up to now that has been our experience also, and it would be their experience again if they had a chance once more to be the Government of this country. If it were not for the Archbishop and his supporters there would have been self-government in Cyprus long ago.
If the Turks have fears, are these fears not fostered by the Archbishop's attempt to prevent their having a full say in their own future, not only as people who are an important minority but as people whose motherland is only forty miles away, while the mainland of Greece is many hundred of miles away from Cyprus?
The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that we were in default of the United Nations Resolution. I do not know whether he has been able to get a preview of the terms of the appeal of the Greek Government to U.N.O. I have myself not yet seen the authoritative text, but I

understand that it may refer, first, to self-determination. This is purely conjecture, because I have not yet seen the proper text. If it does refer to self-determination, I hope that the Committee will remember that the issue on self-determination was not debated at U.N.O. in 1954–55 and a Motion in 1955 was not accepted.
I believe that the application to U.N.O. may charge Her Majesty's Government, as did the hon. Gentleman, with not carrying out last year's U.N.O. Resolution asking the parties to the dispute to resume negotiations. As pointed out here today and in the Press this morning, Her Majesty's Government are certainly not to blame that there have not been negotiations about this. I said on 28th March on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we were prepared in principle that the good offices of N.A.T.O. should be used for mediation. The Turks also agreed and it is only the failure of the Greeks to give their acceptance that accounts for the fact that these talks have not already taken place.

Mr. K. Robinson: Surely the operative word is "resume". The United Nations Resolution called for negotiations. The only negotiations that have been going on and which have been broken off have been those between the Governor of Cyprus and Archbishop Makarios.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Resumption in that context certainly did not mean precisely the same form of negotiation as has taken place before. It meant the resumption of talks with those people most likely to bring about a solution. It was, in our view, mostly likely that a solution on the international plane would come through the good offices of N.A.T.O., and it was because of that that we and the Turks promptly accepted that suggestion.
I believe, secondly, that it may be that the appeal to U.N.O. may refer to certain charges of atrocities which have been made by the Greek Government and by Archbishop Makarios. During the Assembly last year, the Greek Government cabled a list of accusations against British troops in Cyprus, but this list was not published. Our representative asked that either the list be published or that it be withdrawn. It was, in fact, withdrawn. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will remember that when they hear stories about present atrocities.
I have already referred to Sir Ronald Storrs, and I think that it would not be inappropriate to refer to him again. After the riots in 1931 when he was Governor of Cyprus he wrote later as follows:
It was allowed that the insurrection had been put down with a minimum expenditure of time, of force, of money and, above all, of human life. This did not prevent a tempest of denunciation of the brutal savagery of British troops and Cypriot police from breaking out in the Athenian, Greek Alexandrian and Salonika Press. The Balkans and the Levant are past masters in the craft of manufacturing atrocities and of smuggling them through any censorship or customs control. The editors accepted uncritically, augmented and published every fabrication they received …The measure of the virulence of these attacks was the measure of their defeat.
I venture to think that the same fate will befall this new form of campaign against the honour of our troops and security forces.
There are two allegations of charges at the moment with which I have to deal. They are the charges made by Archbishop Makarios at his Press conference, and by certain hon. Members in the Committee today. I promised that a statement would be laid in the Library as soon as it was ready but rather than wait until the full statement was ready—it will take a long time because some of the troops have left the island and many of the descriptions are so vague that the men may be indistinguishable—rather than wait until everything is ready, we have put the first statement in the Library today, as we arranged to do before we knew that there would be a debate today.
In the statement which has been laid in the Library I give certain answers and the Government of Cyprus give certain answers to the charges which have been made. I have been asked whether I would agree and whether the British Government and the Government of Cyprus would agree to there being a public inquiry in Cyprus into these charges. For reasons I have at length explained to the Committee already, it would be out of the question for there to be an inquiry of any kind involving the summoning of witnesses whose lives would be in danger if they were brought and gave evidence. I can only refer hon. Members to the

White Paper of the Cyprus Government on this issue.
In the report I placed in the Library today I deal with two cases, one of which has already been mentioned, the case of Nicos Georghiou which was raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. He was captured in January, 1957, and was placed in a cell of his own at Platres within about forty minutes after his capture. At about 2.30 p.m. on 23rd January, two days later, the guard noticed that he appeared to be unwell. He was taken to the R.A.F. hospital at Akrotiri and a brain operation was carried out, but unfortunately without success. Commenting on this case Makarios said that the autopsy showed that
the only possible explanation of the cause of cerebral hæmorrhage under the circumstances is serious injuries inflicted on the head. The necessary implication is that the death is the results of tortures.…
A more misleading statement cannot be imagined. There was also strictures for there being delay in the holding of the inquest. The only reason for the delay in completing the inquest—which was commented on in Tribune articles—was the request of Mr. Glafcos Clerides, a lawyer of Nicosia, for an adjournment to give him the opportunity to call additional evidence. The inquest was completed at the end of last week, the coroner giving the cause of death as
probably intercranial hæmorrhage and purulent bronchitis occasioned by some unknown external agency of which there is no direct evidence.
How this could possibly be, as the Archbishop said, an implication that it was the result of torture I am at a loss to know. It may perhaps have been caused, asTribune itself said, by "bumping the head against a hard object." I do not pretend to know how this happened—

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghanrose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have not time to give way if I am to answer—

Mr. Callaghan: I quite follow that, but the Secretary of State has referred to what the Archbishop said. We are dealing with what has been said in this House and the essential point is that the injury, according to an Englishman called as a witness at the inquest, must have been caused by external agency and a verdict brought in was that it was occasioned by some unknown external agency


I am asking the Colonial Secretary if in fact this man was held in his own cell, so far as we know without anybody being able to get at him except warders and others, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that there is a case here for probing further into the external agency which caused his death?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, and the Governor is still probing further. What I deny is what Archbishop Makarios actually assumed—

Mr. Callaghan: It has nothing to do with the Archbishop.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —and other people believe, and other sweeping conclusions to which hon. Gentlemen may come.
Another very important case to which I thought it necessary to draw the attention of the Committee is recorded in the report which has been put in the Library. This is the series of sensational charges made by the Archbishop about what he said was the torture of the Abbot of Makheras Monastery. I will not give the various statements of the Archbishop. The facts are, as the report will show, that a complaint on those lines, though less extravagant, was forwarded by Mr. Clerides three weeks after the alleged ill-treatment took place. Up to that time the Abbot had made no mention of any ill-treatment although he had had ample opportunity to do so. On the day he saw Mr. Clerides the Abbot had seen a senior Army officer and made no complaint whatever.
As soon as the complaint was received from Mr. Clerides the Abbot was interviewed by a senior police officer and said he had not asked Mr. Clerides to visit him and that before Mr. Clerides' visit he had no intention whatsoever of making any complaints. But when, however, it became known in Nicosia that he had been interrogated by the security forces, the Church had sent Mr. Clerides to see him; that the Church was very powerful and that he had to find some excuse for admissions he had made to the police regarding his association with the terrorists. There seems to be very little doubt that this unfortunate Abbot was driven into making statements with the truth of which he did not agree. I have hitherto refrained from saying who he was

but, for obvious reasons, in view of the publicity given to what is said in this House, I have no option but to mention his name and the name of Mr. Clerides as well. There was no reference in the Governor's White Paper to the name of the Abbot, but I have no option but to mention it now.
In regard to Wormwood Scrubs, a number of charges have been made. I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT two very convincing letters that the Governor has received from Dr. Brown, chief medical officer, and Dr. Aspinall, the other medical officer of Wormwood Scrubs. I wish that time allowed me to read these long letters—one is long and the other is relatively short—but I will have these letters put into the OFFCIAL REPORT. I am at all times ready to be cross-examined on them. I have the utmost confidence in the integrity and powers of observation of these two devoted officers, and I accept implicitly the statements that they make in their letters to the Governor.

Mr. Brockway: Mr. Brockwayrose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If the right hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the Committee does not give way the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Colonial Secretary constantly to interrupt speeches made by hon. Members on this side of the Committee and not to give way in the present instance?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) knows the rule very well. It is that if another hon. Member gives way the interruption is orderly, but if the other hon. Member does not give way the interruption is not orderly. It is not permissible for two hon. Members to be standing at the same time. The Secretary of State.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boydrose—

Mr. Brockway: Mr. Brockwayrose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Brockway: The point of order I raise is a serious one, and is according to the Standing Orders of this Committee.


[An HON. MEMBER: "Which one?"] Has the Colonial Secretary the right to publish a document in the OFFICIAL REPORT which he has not read to this House?

The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly, and that frequently occurs.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that no hon. Gentleman is anxious, and that no intervention will have an effect, to prevent me from dealing with the cases raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). She raised only two cases, one of the man Renos Kyriakides and the other of Nicolas Loizou in Wormwood Scrubs. After we had had an interchange in the case of Renos Kyriakides, the hon. Lady sent me a letter saying that she was in error in saying that the man she saw today was Renos Kyriakides. He was, in fact, Athanasios Sofocleous. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for so promptly correcting a mistake. I am sure she realises that where grave charges of this kind are being floated about we should be strictly accurate in every detail.

Miss Lee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be good enough to follow the example which I have set him by correcting at once the error in his statement that there was no sign of injury on these men.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am about to deal with everything I have said, if time allows. The hon. Lady has suggested that we should deal with the two cases of Athanasios Sofocleous and Nicolas Loizou. We will drop for the time being the case of Renos Kyriakides. In the case of Nicolas Loizou, no scars were seen on reception by the doctors nor did he complain to the medical authorities. Today, this morning, he showed a mark on his left wrist which he said had been caused by a tight rope. Hon. Members will remember that he had been many months at Wormwood Scrubs. Dr. Brown notes that the mark is not very evident and says that he might easily have missed it if the prisoner had not mentioned it. The prisoner did not complain of it until sonic months after arrival; the implication is that the mark is slight and could have been caused by a wide variety of accidents.
I turn to the case of Sofocleous, which I think is the case to which the hon. Lady was referring this afternoon. He exhibited a sore over an eye and some small sore

on his back. He said that his nose had been broken. The only things found during examination on his reception to the prison were trivial scars on the left knee end left back, and doctors confirm that this is so. I am conscious that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will wish to probe these cases further, and they will now have a chance to try to do so at Question Time, but I am fully satisfied that these are the true facts about the only two cases which she mentioned.
I urged the hon. Lady to give me more detailed information about prisoners whom she herself had seen. I wanted to know from her, for example, who were the people to whom her name was attached by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway)—for instance, the man whose arms had been broken, as the hon. Member said last week. Who were they? There was no reference to them today. There was someone with swellings on his body the size of a cricket ball. Who was he? There was no reference to him today. There was somebody with scars on his neck. There was no reference to him today.

Miss Lee: There was no time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady had all the time in the world. I was conscious that I prolonged her speech a good deal by asking her questions, but I did so in order to get her away from the general and down to the particular. I am so very conscious of this fact—I have had much experience of it in dealing with hon. Ladies in the House over Cyprus—that nothing pleases certain hon. Ladies opposite more than to engage in general charges and to run away when they are asked to specify the individual.

Miss Lee: On a point of order. I told the Minister that I saw scars on these men. That was specific, not general. I want specific charges specifically inquired into.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Today, fortunately, we have also had the benefit of a visit paid by another hon. Member to Wormwood Scrubs this morning—the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe); and we have had the benefit of hearing his observations. He accompanied the two other hon. Members to Wormwood Scrubs, and we were all very much interested in and enlightened by my hon. Friend's speech.


I venture to think that it is not the first time in Parliamentary history that the addition of a third member to a party of two has helped to clarify vital issues.
I was also asked a very serious question about the Council of Europe, and because of the importance of the Council of Europe I think it is highly desirable that I should make a statement now. An hon. Member said that it was shameful that we should be arraigned before the Sub-Committee on Human Rights. Perhaps somebody will read that tomorrow and believe that it is a true statement of the facts. There would be no shame in this, because we regard it as a signal witness to our liberal views that we voluntarily extended the European Convention on Human Rights to Cyprus. There was no obligation upon us to do this. We did it because we are proud and confident of our administration in Cyprus and elsewhere. The shame falls upon those who have circulated false reports of the proceedings at Strasbourg. Many hon. Members will no doubt have seen reports in the Press which have emanated from Athens. I am glad to say that they are misleading in the extreme.
I regret that I cannot go further at present, but the House will understand me when I say that Her Majesty's Government respect their obligations to maintain the secrecy of the proceedings of the Sub-Committee, whatever others may do. It is unfortunate that this confidence should not only have been violated but that the violation should be inaccurate. I hope that hon. Members will think again before they adopt loosely charges from such a source.
I am conscious that there are a number of points with which I should have liked to have dealt, but time does not allow, and I think that hon. Members would have objected if I had asked for more than 35 or 40 minutes in which to conclude the debate. Cyprus is too im-

portant a matter to be made a party issue, and I am conscious that a number of hon. Members opposite agree with me. When we quote what they said when in power, and when they quote us, it is not to engage in recrimination, but because we genuinely believe—and I certainly do —that a Socialist Government would act more or less in the same way again if confronted with the same problem.

I hope that this debate when read carefully by those who see the meaning of what is said and of what is not said by a number of hon. Members opposite will lead to some curbing of the Greek and Greek Cypriot intransigents who at the moment are suffering under the mistaken belief that the Opposition if returned to power will adopt a policy more favourable to them. I do not believe this to be so, and I think that if that is firmly realised the chances of a solution become quite possible.

I am grateful to those hon. Members who have told me that they will be satisfied if I deal personally with the suggestions they have made, but I am very ready in the days that lie ahead of us before the House rises and on two Question days a week to deal with further questions that may be raised. I would ask hon. Members who would prefer to have all the information before they make up their minds to await the publication, which will be laid in the Library, of the answers to all these charges before doing so, and to ask whether the sort of charges now emanating from Athens are the sort of things likely to be done by their constituents or by ours.

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, That Item Class II, Vote 7 (Colonial Office), be reduced by £5.

Question put: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 260, Noes 326.

Division No. 163.]
AYES
[9.57 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Benson, G.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Albu, A. H.
Beswick, Frank
Brockway, A. F.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blenkinsop, A.
Burke, W. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boardman, H.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Baird, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Callaghan, L. J.


Balfour, A.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Carmichael, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Bence, C. H. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Bowles, F. G.
Champion, A. J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Boyd, T. C.
Chapman, W. D.




Chetwynd, G. R.
Jager, George (Goole)
Reid, William


Clunie, J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Rhodes, H.


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Cronin, J. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Royle, C.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shawoross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kenyon, C.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. w.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Ledger, R. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, A, M.


Deer, G.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Marcus
Snow, J. W.


Donnelly, D. L.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dye, S.
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J, A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Steele, T.


Edelman, M.
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stress, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Fienburgh, W.
Mason, Roy
Swingler, S. T.


Finch, H. J.
May hew, C. P.
Sylvester, G. O.


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
Messer, Sir F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Monslow, W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
Thornton, E.


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Timmons, J.


Greenwood, Anthony
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Tomney, F.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Grey, C. F.
Moss, R.
Usborne, H. C.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Mulley, F. W.
Wade, D. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Warbey, W. N.


Grimond, J.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Watkins, T. E.


Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.
Weitzman, D.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hamilton, W. W.
Orbach, M.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.
West, O. G.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Owen, W. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Healey, Denis
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wigg, George


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
WilKins, W. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Willey, Frederick


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Holman, P.
Parker, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Holmes, Horace
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Houghton, Douglas
Paton, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hoy, J. H.
Portland, N.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hubbard, T. F.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, R. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, A. R.
Woof, R. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pryde, D. J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, cmdr. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E.



Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Redhead, E, C.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reeves, J.








NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Aitken, W. T.
Elliott, H. W. (N'castle upon Tyne. N)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Alport, C. J. M.
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Erroll, F. J.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Arbuthnot, John
Fell, A.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Armstrong, C. W.
Finlay, Graeme
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Ashton, H.
Fisher, Nigel
Kaberry, D.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Keegan, D.


Atkins, H. E.
Fort, R.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Foster, John
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kershaw, J. A.


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kimball, M.


Barber, Anthony
Freeth, Derail
Kirk, P. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lagden, G. W.


Barter, John
Gammans, Lady
Lambert, Hon. C.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Glover, D.
Leavey, J. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Glyn, Col. R.
Leburn, W. G.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Godber, J. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Bidgood, J. C.
Goodhart, Philip
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gower, H. R.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Bishop, F. P.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Blank, c. W.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. C. (Sutton Coldfield)


Body, R. F.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Green, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Gresham Cooke, R.
Longden, Gilbert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Braine, B. R,
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gurden, Harold
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, S. J.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Brooman- White, R. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bryan, P.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesfd)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Burden, F. F. A.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Campbell, Sir David
Hay, John
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Carr, Robert
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Channon, Sir Henry
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Maddan, Martin


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hesketh, R. F.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Cole, Norman
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenthawe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cooke, Robert
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cooper, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Douglas


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Mathew, R.


Corfield, Capt, F. V.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hope, Lord John
Mawby, R. L.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O, E.
Hornby, R. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Cunningham, Knox
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Currie, G. B. H.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Dance, J. C. G.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, John (Test)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Deedes, W. F.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Neave, Airey


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicholls, Harmar


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hurd, A. R.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Hutchison, A. M. C. (Ed'burgh, S.)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


du Cann, E, D. L.
Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hyde, Montgomery
Ormsby-Gore, Ht. Hon. W. D.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Duthie, W. S.
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Osborne, C.







Page, R. G.
Sandy t, Rt. Hon. D.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Partridge, E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr, R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Sharples, R. C.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shepherd, William
Turner, H. F. L.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Pilkington, capt. R. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pitman, I. J.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Vane, W. M. F.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Soames, Christopher
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Pott, H. P.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vickers, Miss Joan


Powell, J. Enoch
Speir, R. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wall, Major Patrick


Profumo, J. D.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Ward, Rt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Ramsden, J. E.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Rawlinson, Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Redmayne, M.
Storey, S.
Webbe, Sir H.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Renton, O. L. M.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Ridsdale, J, E.
Sumner, W. O. M. (Orpington)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Rippon, A. G. F.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Robertson, Sir David
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Teeling, W.
Woollam, John Victor


Robson Brown, Sir William
Temple, John M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)



Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott.


Russell, R. S.
Thompson. Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

Original Question again proposed.

Sir Henry Studholme: rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

INTERNATIONAL TIN COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

10.10 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) (Amendment) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 22nd May.
The Order placed before the House is, as I think the House knows, an amending Order to the Order to which the House agreed on 26th July, which took effect on 3rd August, and is Statutory Instrument 1956 No. 1214. This amending Order is designed to give effect to a Resolution of the International Tin Council, Cmd. 38/56, concerning the remuneration, and only the remuneration, of the Council's employees. The House is rightly very jealous of Orders concerning immunities and privileges of this sort, and it is right to make it quite clear that this one is very limited in its scope. It is limited to the salaries of the executives of the Council.
In another place, the noble Lord, Lord Reading, made it clear that as a result of certain interpretations of the original Agreement it would be necessary at a later date to move an Amendment, which, in fact, is in the form of this amending Order. The reason is that it was found that the original Order did not exempt the actual payments of employees, as opposed to the exemption of the funds of the Council.
It is only right that the House should know more or less what this involves, first of all in terms of people. The number of people is very small. The total number of executives involved is thirteen. It does not apply to British employees of the Council, and as there are seven of these

at present we are concerned now only with six people, although, of course, in certain circumstances, the numbers might vary.
It is also right to say that this is an agreement similar to the one which applies to members of the European Coal and Steel Community. I do not think the House would wish for any more detailed explanation of what is a very limited Order. If there are any further points on which hon. Members will require clarification, with the permission of the House, I shall be very glad to deal with them.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: The Joint Under-Secretary is quite correct when he says that the House is jealous of the immunities that it grants to foreigners within our shores. At the same time, we had a very long debate on this matter when we dealt with the principal Act, the International Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, in relation to this matter, and I will not go over all the arguments which were then adduced. We on this side of the House are well satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's statement.
We recognise that in this international organisation, whose funds come from other countries apart from our own, there must be some exemptions. In this case, the number of exemptions is only six, out of a total staff of thirteen, the other seven being British subjects. Accordingly, we have no objection at all to the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) (Amendment) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 22nd May.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: When I asked for the opportunity to initiate this debate I had two main points in my mind. First, I wanted to try to show that the unemployment figures, whether we take the total figures or the percentage figures, are insufficient as a means of judging what is happening as regards employment opportunities in the various regions. Secondly, I wanted to answer the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour in the assertions which he has made several times that the trend of unemployment over the past few years—in fact he said "a good few years"—has been in favour of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman spoke solely of the Scottish position. If I am to take it that the trend is in favour of Scotland it must mean, if it means anything, that the position of Scotland according to the right hon. Gentleman has been one of improvement over the years as compared either with the various other regions or with Great Britain. It is this that I deny.
One would have to look at it almost microscopically to see any improvement. We could go back farther, but if we take the figures from 1953, it will be seen that in that year the Great Britain monthly average was 1·6 per cent. whereas the Scottish monthly average was 3 per cent., so that then the Scottish average was just under double the other figure. In 1954 the Scottish average was rather more than double, 2·8 per cent. as against 1·3 per cent., and similarly in 1955 the Scottish figure was more than double again. 2·4 per cent, as compared with 1·1 per cent. In 1956 it was exactly double, and I submit that in those four years there was no evidence of a trend in favour of Scotland.
If one went further than this it would be found that the trend over the years has been substantially against Scotland. I examined the figures for the ten years prior to the war and compared them with the ten years before 1956. I took only one month, but it was the same month, namely, December in each year. I found

that in mid-December for 1930 to 1939 the average percentage of Scottish unemployment as a proportion of the total Great Britain unemployment over the ten years was 15 per cent. The lowest percentage was in December, 1939, when it was 13 per cent., and the highest was in the two Decembers of 1936 and 1937, when it was 16·3 per cent.
I then compared the ten years ending 1956, and found that the average for that period was 20 per cent. That means that during the ten years ending 1956 one in five of the unemployed of Great Britain were in Scotland, compared with about one in seven in the ten years prior to the war.
On the basis of an Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to a Question of mine on 30th May, we find nothing to indicate a steady improvement in favour of Scotland. I asked what proportion Scottish unemployment was of Great Britain unemployment during the years from 1950 to 1956. The Minister replied that the figures would be circulated, but when pressed and asked whether the figures showed any tendency in favour of Scotland, he admitted that the figures went up and down, and he seized upon the best figure, which, fortunately for him was the last figure, and said that I should be happy to know that it was 18·2 per cent. We find that over the years from 1950 to 1956, the figures varied from the lowest at 18·2 per cent. to the high figure of 23·1 per cent. Taking the years from 1952 to 1955, the percentage steadily worsened against Scotland.
In looking at these figures, one cannot say that there is a trend in favour of Scotland, not if we are thinking of Scotland as part of Great Britain. We must in this case think in relative terms. If we think of Scotland today compared with Scotland pre-war, there has been a substantial improvement; but that applies all round. My first point in reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that there is no trend that I can detect in favour of Scotland; rather the reverse has been the case.
I am not questioning the accuracy of the regular unemployment figures which we are given but I suggest that they are insufficient to enable us to judge the labour demand position in Scotland or


any of the other regions. Indeed, if we confine ourselves to the unemployment figure, it is like a doctor confining himself to taking the patient's temperature. The patient's temperature is, of course, very important, but there are many other matters which have to be examined before a doctor can determine whether a person is healthy or unhealthy. I suggest that the unemployment figure would be very much more accurate and give a clearer picture of the position in any region if we combined it with the monthly figures for unfilled notified vacancies. If we take the position in May, 1957, and combine those figures, we find that for every 100 persons registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain, there were 96 unfilled notified vacancies.
In the North Midlands Region at that time there were 192 unfilled vacancies for every 100 persons unemployed. In London and the South-East there were 154; in Wales, 47; and in Scotland, 36 for every 100 persons unemployed. The Parliamentary Secretary should contrast the difference, 36 unfilled vacancies per 100 persons out of work in Scotland, as compared with 192 unfilled vacancies per 100 persons unemployed in the North Midlands Region.
In May, the position was rather black compared with previous years. In October, 1955, for example, a peak year for demand for labour, the average number of unfilled vacancies for each 100 persons wholly unemployed was 256—more than two and a half times the number of persons unemployed. In the North Midlands Region there were 577 unfilled vacancies for each 100 persons unemployed; in the Midlands, 495; in London and the South-East, 343; in Wales, 74; and in Scotland—right at the bottom; Scotland is always at the bottom in these matters—45. In other words, in the North Midlands the number of vacancies per 100 persons unemployed was more than 12 times the number in Scotland.
Those features ought to be taken into account when trying to estimate the unemployment position in the country. We should certainly take into account migration of labour, not emigration beyond the seas, but the movement of labour within our own shores. Despite the fact that year after year Scotland loses thousands

of workpeople, unemployment in Scotland remains relatively high. In May it was 2·6 per cent., but in London and the South-East, although thousands of workers are constantly being drawn into the area, unemployment remains relatively low and at that time was 1 per cent.
Again quoting the Ministry of Labour's own figures, in the year ending May, 1956, Scotland lost 10,000 workers to England and Wales, mainly to London and the Midlands. In the same year, London and the South gained about 22,000 workpeople from the other regions. That process is always continuing and yet, in spite of the great demand for labour in the South, unemployment remains low. In the North the figure remains high and yet labour is being lost and in the South unemployment is low while labour is being gained. Clearly, the present unemployment index does not present an accurate picture.
That contention is borne out on examination of the rate of increase in the number of workers in the different regions. There is a very wide variation. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour told me that from mid-1948 to mid-1955 the increase in certain regions was very considerable, but in others it was negligible. The highest of the increases was in the Eastern Region where, over those years, it was 12·8 per cent. The lowest was in Wales, where it was 0·9 per cent. For Scotland the figure was 2·4 per cent.—second from the bottom. The average for all the regions, excluding Northern Ireland, was 5·9 per cent.
I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that Scotland at least should have had the average increase. If she had had it she would have had, in 1955, about 73,000 more workpeople than she actually did have, either looking for or in employment. If they had been out of work we should have had an unemployment figure very different from what it was. If Scotland had increased at the same rate as the Midlands—8·9 per cent.—she would have had around 136,000 more work-people. I am not claiming that she should have had the Midlands increase, but it must be remembered that the birth rate in Scotland is rather higher than it is in other parts of the country. The natural increase in our population is


greater than it is in other parts and yet, because of this constant draining away of our people, we find ourselves in this position.
There are quite a number of points which are of relevance to this question of the inadequacy of the employment statistics that we get. Let us take the question of underemployment. It is a well known fact that certain districts in Scotland employ a larger proportion of people than other districts. A larger proportion of women is employed in the Angus district around Dundee than is employed in the Aberdeen district.
What is true of Scotland is also true of Scotland as compared with England and Wales. I have no doubt that there are also some variations in England and Wales, but I have not the figures. However, I did get from the Minister of Labour the information that at mid-1955— the most recent figures I was able to get—48 per cent. of the total population of England and Wales was gainfully employed. At the same date, 46 per cent. of the total population of Scotland was gainfully employed. It might be said—in fact, this was the attitude of the Minister of Labour— that that is a very small difference; it is merely 2 per cent. But 2 per cent. of a population of over 5 million amounts to substantially more than 100,000 people. If Scotland were employing up to the level of England and Wales she would certainly have to find work for well over 100,000 more people, quite apart from the fact that she loses some of her population year by year.
My final point refers to the proportion of the unemployed that might be described as long-term unemployed. We know that in any region there is always a pool of people who might be described as almost unemployable. I should think that that pool would be pretty well the same throughout the country. There are people in all districts who will not or cannot work, but who still sign on at employment exchanges. We find very considerable differences in the various regions, however. In October, 1954, in the Midlands this pool of people amounted to 20·5 per cent.; at the same time, in Scotland it was 51·2 per cent. I am talking about people with over eight weeks of unemployment. In October, 1956, in the Midlands the figure

had gone up to 32·1 per cent., and in Scotland it was 50·7 per cent.
In that and in other respects of which I have spoken the evidence points to the fact that it is quite insufficient to judge what is happening in a region on the basis of unemployment figures, either the whole figures or a percentage. I submit that these unemployment figures should be combined with other figures and an effort made to produce something in the nature of a weighted index. I am no statistician and I cannot say how it should be done, but such an effort should be made to give us an accurate picture of what is happening in the various regions.

10.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has raised two important points. I was expecting the first one, as the hon. Member had courteously made known to me in advance that he proposed to raise the question of the inadequacy of the unemployment statistics. His second point was, as he said, more in the nature of a reply to a previous speech of my right hon. Friend, and I have not come prepared to reply to that. Indeed, in the nine minutes available to me, it would be impossible for me to do so; but we expect to have a full debate on the question of industry in Scotland later in the week and I have no doubt that the Government spokesman in that debate will be able to deal fully with the statistical matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
I agree with the hon. Member that the bare figures of the number of unemployed, or the percentage rate of unemployment, do not give an adequate picture of the situation in a particular area. Were that all we depended on I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that we would be like a doctor trying to do his work only by taking a patient's temperature. I wish to make clear that in fact we go into the matter much more deeply and publish a great deal more information than that. It is true that our basic information about unemployment—and the ligures which we hear quoted most frequently, perhaps because they are the easiest figures to get hold of—is the percentage unemployment rate. But I should like to point out first of all that the monthly tables we publish about


the unemployment rate in each region of England, Scotland and Wales go a long way beyond the regional analysis. They give the numbers of unemployed in the principal towns, so that regularly published every month are figures not only covering each main area of the United Kingdom but also giving more detailed figures for the principal towns.
We also publish tables analysing the national figures to show the number of unemployed in each industry, which it is most important that we should know. Since we are alive to the great difference in terms of hardship between a couple of weeks or even two months between jobs, and the lot of a man out of work for many months and unable to find a job, we also analyse the figures on the basis of the duration of unemployment. Each month we publish separate figures for those unemployed two weeks or less, eight weeks or less and for more than eight weeks. At longer intervals we publish the figures of the duration of unemployment in still more detail.
Every quarter we give national figures for those unemployed for periods up to and exceeding one year, and every six months we publish a full table showing the duration of unemployment by various periods up to and exceeding two years, for each region and separately for each Development Area. This table also gives the analysis of the age of those unemployed, so that we can see whether the problem is falling more heavily on one age group or another. So even on the side of unemployment we go a great deal further than merely publishing unemployment rates. I think that it is right and most important that we should do so, but I go even further with the hon. Gentleman. I have so far spoken only of the information that we publish about unemployment. This is only one side of the equation. As the hon. Gentleman said, we must also take account of the general level of employment in an area and the movement and size of the working population.
All the necessary figures are available to us. The most valuable statistics of employment are the details of insured employees obtained each year from the count of insurance cards and published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette each February and March. They show the

numbers employed in each industry or, alternatively, the numbers employed in each part of the country, giving in each case the numbers of men, women, boys and girls separately.
These figures are supplemented each month by the returns we receive from employers, the results of which are also published in our Gazette. These enable us to watch current trends in employment in different industries and to relate them to our other information.

Mr. James McInnes: The figures published in February relate to the previous May and take nine months to compile before they can be made available.

Mr. Carr: I realise that. The figures obtained from employers are available much more quickly but the basic information from the count of insurance cards inevitably takes some time to produce. The hon. Gentleman referred to migrations from Scotland to other parts of the country and said quite rightly that they should be taken account of in assessing the employment sitation. This is, of course, done. Migration is reflected in the insurance card count and we publish figures of the net loss or gain to each region of the country as the result of internal movement of labour. These figures are published once a year. They show the net outward movement of workers from Scotland to have been greater than from the English regions. This movement has, however, not been large. It has averaged little over 0·4 per cent. of all insured employees in each year since 1951
We also collect and publish the numbers region by region of vacancies notified by employers and remaining unfilled at a particular date each month. We also show the particular industries in which vacancies exist and whether they are for men, women, boys or girls. These figures are useful both to indicate fluctuations in demand and in relation to figures of unemployed in particular areas.
In the Ministry of Labour Gazette each month, therefore, one can find a fairly detailed survey of the employment situation, the rate of turn-over of labour, vacancies unfilled and, against this background, the numbers unemployed in particular areas. In addition to all these


figures there are, from time to time, special articles which go into greater detail and discuss the various problems involved.
We do not publish all the material at our disposal. I think, however, it is well-known and appreciated by the House that my Department is always ready to produce information about a particular industry or area on request. Moreover, for Scotland the Scottish Statistical Office publishes every six months a special digest of Scottish statistics. Even more local information, not published, is supplied regularly to our local employment committees, of which there are a number in Scotland.

Mr. Lawson: I hate to interrupt, but I know all this. I want to know whether it can be co-ordinated.

Mr. Carr: I will consider that matter further, but I want to stress that we do not depend only or even mainly on the crude temperature of the unemployment rate. I have given thought since the hon. Gentleman raised the matter to the possibility of combining the figures, and I will most certainly consider it further. For the moment, I do not see how all these factors can be combined in one index. We measure them and publish the results and our advice to other Government Departments takes all these factors into account. However, if some better index can be devised, I will certainly give thought to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.